• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Oil companies called to the carpet

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
colored highlights are my comments. this was on yahoo this morning, I found it laughable, just going thru the motions, since our govt is not going to do anything, and IT CAN, to control this as long as bushy boy is there.

Nader will, or should, he does not owe them one red cent. I would love to see us tell the rag heads, keep it, we dont need it.

Article follows. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_10



WASHINGTON - Top executives of the five biggest U.S. oil companies said Tuesday they know high fuel prices are hurting consumers, but deflected any blame and argued their profits — $123 billion last year — were in line with other industries. Yeah right! Read on
"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., as his committee began hearing from the oil company executives. I like this guy!
Lawmakers were looking for answers to the soaring fuel costs a day after the Energy Department said the national average price of gasoline reached a record $3.29 cents a gallon and global oil prices remained above $100 a barrel although supplies of both gasoline and oil seemed to be adequate.
"I heard what you are hearing," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., told Markey, adding in prepared testimony that he knows that "Americans are worried about the rising price of energy.... These cost increases are hitting consumers hard, particularly the poor and those on fixed incomes."
But neither Hofmeister nor the executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., BP America Inc., Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillips said their companies should be blamed and they rejected the notion that their profits are extreme. Oh, yeah, right. Your bonuses are more than most any 10 people make in a year.
"Our earnings, though high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S. Simon, Exxon Mobil's senior vice president. Last year the oil and gas industry earned 8.3 cents per dollar of sales, only a little higher than the Dow Jones Industrial Average for major industries, he argued in prepared testimony. Not to shabby, but they sure do make it like it hurts them.
Executives from the largest U.S oil companies have been frequent targets of lawmakers, frustrated at not being able to do much to counter soaring oil and gasoline costs.
In November, 2005, Hofmeister and the top executives of the same companies represented Tuesday, sat in a Senate hearing room to explained high prices and their huge profits.
The prices are of concern, Hofmeister said at the time, adding a note of optimism: "Our industry is extremely cyclical and what goes up almost always comes down," he told the skeptical senators on a day when oil cost $60 a barrel. Go down, sure take them back to where they should be.
About six months later, when the cost of the same barrel reached $75, the executives were grilled again on Capitol Hill on their spending and investment priorities.
Recently oil prices reached a peak of $111 a barrel. While declining a bit in recent days, the price remains above $100 and there's talk of $4 a gallon gasoline in the coming months.
Markey challenged the executives to pledge to invest 10 percent of their profits to develop renewable energy and give up $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years so money could be funneled to support other energy and conservation.
The executives said the companies already are spending billions of dollars — more than $3.5 billion over the last five years — on renewable fuels such as wind energy and biodiesel, but rejected any tax increases. Poor souls, maybe we should take up a collection for them.............this is around 3% of JUST THIS YEARS PROFITS FOLKS. And they still want tax breaks on it.
"Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay record taxes, will discourage the sustained investment needed to continue safeguarding U.S. energy security," Simon insisted.
"These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies ... while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone," complained Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
The House last year and again on Feb. 27 approved legislation that would have ended the tax breaks for the oil giants, while using the revenue to support wind, solar and other renewable fuels and incentives for energy conservation. The measure has not passed the Senate.
The oil industry has argued on Capitol Hill and at the White House that the tax breaks are needed to assure continued investment in exploration, production and refinery expansions. President Bush has promised to veto any such bill, saying the oil companies should not be singled out. He owns too much of them and he owes them for all the money they gave him to get elected.
The threat of nationwide $4-a-gallon gasoline, perhaps this summer, and $100-a-barrel oil is producing strong political reverberations, even as lawmakers acknowledged there is little that Congress can do to bring prices down.
On Monday, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said the president should release oil from the government's emergency reserve to put more supplies on the market, saying, "We are quite clearly in the midst of an energy emergency." He noted the bankruptcy of Aloha Airlines, blamed in part on high jet-fuel costs.
The White House has repeatedly rejected use of the oil in the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve to influence prices Hey dipstick, you have our men fighting in an oil rich country, just take it.........they will owe us for about 100 plus years anyway, then we can tell the oil boys with rags on their heads, we dont need your stinking oil............
 
Last edited:

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
you have our men fighting in an oil rich country, just take it....
...Back to reality ... There's a problem. One of the miscalculations going in to the Iraq war, was that the oil there would pay our costs of the war.

Remember when the 'allies', France, Germany, etc began to back away from the 'alliance' leaving us to go it alone? I read that the underlying issue was that they all had secret agreements with Saddam based on lending him money, that promised them all the oil production for years to come. The US was unaware of these agreements.

Finally the agreements came to light, and the US as conquerer was faced with the responsibility to fulfill these contracts owed to Europe. If we repudiated the debts our own credibility would fall - it is very rare for a sovereign nation to default on debts owed between governments.

So in effect what we bought was responsibility to pay back loans owed by Saddam, instead of getting a bunch of oil for us that was free for the taking. And all of this assumes the oilfields can produce. Al Queda and the other extremists know that keeping the oil production capacity in chaos is a way to hurt the west.

There's no easy way out.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
The oil companies make around 24 cents a gallon, while the govt takes almost 50 cents here in Wisconsin. Damn oil companies any-how. Who the hell gives them the right to make money? They are in business to give it away! Oil should be free!
I think the govt should raise taxes on fuel to 2 bucks a gallon! That'll fix us! We'll stop using oil! And shut down industry. Then we can all live off the governement on our unemployment checks. And with all the industry shut down, old Al Gore will go broke trying to sell his 3 billion in carbon credits that he does not disclose.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
...There's no easy way out.

screw saddam, he is dead, his contracts should be void, since he was no longer dictator. Dont even think for one second they would not do us this way..................

Iraq could be state 51, free, and under our rule..............I know get your head out of the clouds and your ass out of the ground.

wait till november, you will see those rag heads heading to the toilet when the independants clean house. they will be begging us to buy
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
The oil companies make around 24 cents a gallon, while the govt takes almost 50 cents here in Wisconsin. Damn oil companies any-how. Who the hell gives them the right to make money? They are in business to give it away! Oil should be free!
I think the govt should raise taxes on fuel to 2 bucks a gallon! That'll fix us! We'll stop using oil! And shut down industry. Then we can all live off the governement on our unemployment checks. And with all the industry shut down, old Al Gore will go broke trying to sell his 3 billion in carbon credits that he does not disclose.


hey heres a plan they give up the govt freeby's. govt gives up the .50, they get the freeby money back and we get gas cheaper...............

or

We all take one day a week, dont drive at all, then we go to 2 days, start using public transport, and eventually realize cars are a luxury, and gas is now 1.00 a gallon, but we dont use but a tank a MONTH, the big bad boys up there in oil haven are now wondering how to pay the piper, and mc'ds is looking like a great career.
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
Point One: Oil prices are set by commodity speculators, not oil companies.

Point Two: If oil companies are profitable, what happens to that profit? Do they stuff it into mason jars and bury it in the back yard? No, they invest it to make more money. Where does that investment go? To you and me through employment.



This whole thing is nothing but a BS publicity stunt by the ill-liberal, moronic congress They are trying to make the ignorant masses think they want to do something and shift attention away from their sinking approval ratings.
 

RedRocker

Active member
This whole thing is nothing but a BS publicity stunt by the ill-liberal, moronic congress They are trying to make the ignorant masses think they want to do something and shift attention away from their sinking approval ratings.

Bingo!! most folks are too stupid to see pandering when they see it.
Last I heard profits were a good thing and there was no cap on how much
you could make. FYI ddrane, public transportation isn't much of an option in the big Western states and what they have ain't worth a damn.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I absolutely LOVE the response about this from Barack Obama, that sack of shit liar!

He actually made a campaign commercial about it and he states at the end of his rant that he "Doesn't take money from oil companies" but that is pretty much like Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski. In fact it is illegal for a candidate to take funds directly from corporations but they are allowed to take the funds from corporate officers and they are allowed to take 'bundled' contributions from employees.

Obama has not taken money from Oil Companies because he would be guilty of campaign finance fraud. Obama has accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

He is a lying sack of shit. The oil companies own that guy and the idiots who vote for him because they believe his lies are clearly sheep being led to a slaughter.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
The oil companies own that guy and the idiots who vote for him because they believe his lies are clearly sheep being led to a slaughter.


exactly why I am voting for independant, Nader said he will take contributions from individuals, not corps.... I am not wasting a vote per sey, I am sending a message, I dont like either of the other party candidates. if either of them win, we loose.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
exactly why I am voting for independant, Nader said he will take contributions from individuals, not corps....
Danny that is the EXACT SAME THING that Obama said. Nader will take 'bundled' contributions just like all the others. The difference is that Obama and Nader both are 'parsing words' to confuse you into thinking they are not 'bought' by special interests. You got duped.

IT IS ILLEGAL, under campaign finance laws, to take contributions directly from CORPORATIONS.

IT IS LEGAL to take them from individuals.

CONSEQUENTLY corporations routinely get their managers together and 'bundle' contributions and send them in the names of individuals. The way it works is that each manager will get a 'bonus' in the amount of the contribution (plus some extra to offset tax liability) and then they send these 'individual' contributions to their favorite candidate! Hell I did this many times at my former company!!! My lobbyist who explained how to do this, and who directed me who to make the checks out to, is a former downstate (Democratic) Indiana Representative that I still have on payroll.

So when ANY politician says they won't take money from corporations all they are saying is they will follow the law.

And when ANY politician says he will take money from individuals all they are saying is they will follow the law.

But don't be misled by their statements because these politicians will take 'corporate' donations in the form of bundled individual donations. Its the legal loophole in the law.

People are so f-ing naive it pisses me off.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
Danny that is the EXACT SAME THING that Obama said. Nader will take 'bundled' contributions just like all the others. The difference is that Obama and Nader both are 'parsing words' to confuse you into thinking they are not 'bought' by special interests. You got duped.

IT IS ILLEGAL, under campaign finance laws, to take contributions directly from CORPORATIONS.

IT IS LEGAL to take them from individuals.

CONSEQUENTLY corporations routinely get their managers together and 'bundle' contributions and send them in the names of individuals. The way it works is that each manager will get a 'bonus' in the amount of the contribution (plus some extra to offset tax liability) and then they send these 'individual' contributions to their favorite candidate! Hell I did this many times at my former company!!! My lobbyist who explained how to do this, and who directed me who to make the checks out to, is a former downstate (Democratic) Indiana Representative that I still have on payroll.

So when ANY politician says they won't take money from corporations all they are saying is they will follow the law.

And when ANY politician says he will take money from individuals all they are saying is they will follow the law.

But don't be misled by their statements because these politicians will take 'corporate' donations in the form of bundled individual donations. Its the legal loophole in the law.

People are so f-ing naive it pisses me off.



go to his website Bob, I doubt that any corporation will contribute to him with his negative words about corp America. Also, each "person" signs as giving from themselves, not from others. In the worst case I am choosing the lesser of all evils, but I do trust this one more than hillarious, or rag head, or mcpain.

Another thought, maybe there should be a law that NO FRIGGIN money at all should EVER be given to any political candidate and that they should use THEIR own money to run..........now that IS THE ONLY REAL solution that makes sense. If you take one dime from a kid selling papers, one benefit whatever, you are out of the race, and out of society for say 20 years..........with no parole. We must choose on our own belief and mind the lessor of the evils, I choose this candidate.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
go to his website Bob, I doubt that any corporation will contribute to him with his negative words about corp America. Also, each "person" signs as giving from themselves, not from others.

Danny no corporation CAN donate to him. Only individuals can.

When corporations/organizations 'bundle' funds, everyone who donates signs a form saying they are making a personal donation.

You got duped.

Honestly what I described is what happens. It is legal. It is the way the system works.

And I would agree that very few traditional companies will donate to Nader but I would suggest that many of the "alternative" energy companies will donate to him, also many other 'special interest' type companies will be supporters of Nader. So he won't sell his soul to EXXON but he will sell it to Blue Sun Energy or some bio-fuel type company.
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
Another thought...

No, Danny. The real solution is term limits. Get these fat cats on both sides of the aisle out of there every two terms.


But, that will never happen. Human nature. They can vote their own raises and benefits, just like the welfare junkies can continue to vote democRAT.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
Danny no corporation CAN donate to him. Only individuals can.

When corporations/organizations 'bundle' funds, everyone who donates signs a form saying they are making a personal donation.

You got duped.

Honestly what I described is what happens. It is legal. It is the way the system works.

And I would agree that very few traditional companies will donate to Nader but I would suggest that many of the "alternative" energy companies will donate to him, also many other 'special interest' type companies will be supporters of Nader. So he won't sell his soul to EXXON but he will sell it to Blue Sun Energy or some bio-fuel type company.


Guess I am just stupid..........but my gut says this man is the one to change the course of Americas slide to a 3rd world existance for all except those that go the flow of the crooks in govt.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
No, Danny. The real solution is term limits. Get these fat cats on both sides of the aisle out of there every two terms.


But, that will never happen. Human nature. They can vote their own raises and benefits, just like the welfare junkies can continue to vote democRAT.


those fat cats wont spend 100 million plus for a 400K job, so if they had to do this on their OWN money they would not do it.......
 

RedRocker

Active member
those fat cats wont spend 100 million plus for a 400K job, so if they had to do this on their OWN money they would not do it.......

It ain't about the money, it's the power. I do believe Mitt spent a butt load of his own money on his run. If you limit it to your own money, then only rich folks could run for office. Of course it's pretty much that way now.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
It ain't about the money, it's the power. I do believe Mitt spent a butt load of his own money on his run. If you limit it to your own money, then only rich folks could run for office. Of course it's pretty much that way now.



Point of the whole thing is, If there is no pak money, no corp money, no endorsements from the corps, etc. then it is pretty much a fair race..........and really now if I had 100 million do you think I want a job that make you look as bad as billie boy and his old lady after only 8 years..............I could make 400K a year and never touch the interest on the principal of the money market accounts.
 
Top