Oily Politicians
Posted April 2nd, 2008 by Da King
The lies and distortions are coming at us so fast and furious that it's almost hard to keep up. The historic Democratic presidential campaign has deteriorated into a daily discussion of Who's Zoomin' Who ? (my vote goes to Hillary, for Lifetime Achievement In Falsehood).
However, since Congress put on it's annual dog and pony show with the oil company executives yesterday, I want to say a word about one of Obama's distortions. Obama claims that he doesn't take money from the oil companies:
“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.” - Barack Obama
Barry claims he doesn't take money from oil companies, and it's true, he doesn't. The part Barry leaves out is that NONE of the candidates take money from the oil companies. They can't, because it's ILLEGAL. The other part Barry leaves out is that he DOES take money from oil company executives, and two of his largest fundraisers are oil company executives, according to factcheck.org. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. We can call this the Obama Oil Slick.
I'm also growing a little tired of Democrats like Obama talking about taking away the profits of the oil companies, especially since THE GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY FROM OIL COMPANY SALES THAN THE OIL COMPANIES DO ! If the government truly cares about us little people, why don't they ever talk about removing the 65 cents tax on every gallon of gas ? Why is it immoral for oil companies to make a profit, but perfectly fine for the government, who doesn't drill, refine, or deliver one drop of oil to the pump, to make even bigger profits from oil ? Who IS zoomin' who ? What the Dems are really saying is that THEY want to steal the oil company profits for themselves. That ain't free market capitalism, folks. That's a whole different -ism, one we've fought wars against. One we shouldn't tolerate for a second.
The Democrats also ask why the oil companies should continue to get tax breaks when they are making record profits. That's a valid question, but, do the Dems realize that raising taxes on oil companies won't lower the price of gas, but will instead raise it ? They DO realize that, don't they ? Please tell me they do.
Amid all the blame being doled out to the mean old oil companies by the Democrats, one congressman actually asked a useful question (golf clap):
"What would bring lower prices?" asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican
"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's coastal waters are off limits to drilling.
What's this ? You mean increasing the supply of gasoline (combined with reducing demand) might reduce the price of gasoline ? Too bad some economist hasn't come along and realized that this supply vs demand thingy might be important, huh ? I think it could even be some kind of economic law, maybe. Perhaps someone should look into it.
And guess which political party has been responsible for restricting the supply of oil in the good old U.S. of A, by restricting drilling, among other things ? If you said "THE DEMOCRATS", the same people bitching about the price of gas now, you win a cigar (just don't try to smoke that cigar. The Dems don't like smoking or oil drilling. They've restricted both).
By the way, since the Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 elections, the price of gasoline has risen by about $1.00 per gallon. Those SOB's.
The increase in the price of gas isn't the Dems fault, of course, I was the one zoomin' you that time, but since this is election season, and since I've heard Bush blamed for the price of gas about ten billion times by Democrats, I thought I'd throw that in to score a cheap and dishonest political point. It's the Democrat way… Ewww. Suddenly, I feel dirty. This must be what those Dems in Congress would feel like…if they had consciences.
Exxon/Mobil made $40 billion in 2007. I think their net profit margin was about 9 percent. That's not a very large profit margin. It's pretty low when compared to other businesses, even though the absolute profit number is huge. I'm not saying this to defend the oil companies, I'm saying it because it's true. Exxon's profit is due to Exxon's enormous record sales. I couldn't find the exact number, but CNNmoney has some of the numbers here.
If the Democrats would agree to expanded offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and new refineries, Exxon could and would use a lot of those profits for new oil exploration to increase the supply of domestic oil and reduce foreign consumption until such time as alternative fuels are ready for mass use and cost effective. That would be sensible and would benefit america, but the Dems are against it, apparently because a polar bear or fish might have to relocate. They'd rather just point the finger and steal Exxon's money instead. Those are some oily politicians, and their policies are providing NO help to americans.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
The liberals [progressives] work at:
a) constricting the domestic supply of oil & natural gas [ANWR, off-shore drilling, etc.],
b) increasing taxes on oil/gas,
c) putting whacko environmental regulations on the grades of gasoline that must be sold in areas, and of course,
d) stopping nuclear power.
The libs do all this, and their Dims blame the profits of Exxom/Moble for high gasoline prices at the pump. Amazing!
But of course, the agenda of the Dims & liberals is not low gasoline price. It's higher prices …. just like the Dim goal in not an American victory in Iraq but a humiliating defeat.
What's good for America is politically bad for the Dims, and what is bad for America is politically good for the Dims.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 am
Last year, the NY Times ran op-ed after op-ed advocating for huge increases in the gasoline tax, with the alleged idea being that it would decrease consumption. That was an economy killer of a thought, but the left was pushing the heck out of it. The actual reason for the big new gas tax, of course, was that it would put tons of new money in the government coffers, which is the ultimate goal of ALL left wing policy. The better to bring socialism about.
And you nailed it. What's bad for america is good for the Dems, and vice versa. If Iraq goes bad, it's good for the Dems. If the economy goes bad, it's good for the Dems. If people can't get jobs, it's good for the Dems. Why should the Dems ever try to solve the problems ? It would put them out of a job. The Dems need us weak and dependent. That keeps them in power. That's why at every turn, the Dems tell us how badly we need them so we won't waste away, at the same time they are taking all our wages away through one tax or another. It's basically an elaborate scam.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 am
When this country finally finds an alternative to oil and gasoline, you can bet that it's going to be Exxon and the other big oil suppliers that lead the way and corner the market.
The trick is to get them to start investing more of that $40 billion in the search for new technology now rather than later. Raising taxes and restricting access to potential oil fields seems to have the opposite effect so maybe the government should try something different.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Two problems with your post.
Obama said…
"I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists,…"
..then you say…
"Barry claims he doesn't take money from oil companies, and it's true, he doesn't."
Go figure.
Secondly…and this one I'm getting tired of repeating. Experts in the oil industry have reported that there is not enough off shore or ANWR product to even make a ripple in demand. Arguments that suggest more N. American drilling is the answer are silly and simplistic…at times misleading and dishonest.
larry is closer to reality…..the feds should force those record windfall profits into alternative energy initiatives.
Finally….the gamblers who have driven up the price of oil…that's the place to look if you're looking for villains. However, they were given the "excuse" to gamble those oil prices upward with the clustermess of uncertainty in the middle eastern oil patch….a clustermess brought on by the Oil Patch Twins. Coincidence?
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
If Democrats win in 2008, I bet oil demand worldwide will go way down and back to pre-2000 levels and the price will dramatically drop?
Right?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Rev,
On your first point, you quoted me to prove how wrong I was. Interesting tactic. I didn't realize my own statements could disprove me, since that's an impossibility. You also left out, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story regarding Obama's oil executive contributors. No surprise there, that's your standard tactic.
On your second point, since the only way to really tell how much oil's in ANWR is to drill there, how do you know how much of a dent it would make ? (and it would be a dent in supply, not in demand as you said), Do you have a crystal ball ? Here are some lo/hi estimates of ANWR oil reserves, from anwr.org:
"U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).
U.S. Geological Survey - 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It's Time to Find Out!)"
There is nothing silly or simplistic about drilling in ANWR or offshore. What is silly (actually 'dangerous' is a better word) is not to produce as much oil as we can domestically until we can switch to alternative fuels, which is not going to happen overnight. I guess you prefer sending all our money to the countries that hate us in the meantime, so they can hold our economy hostage at their whim. Really bad thinking.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
King,
Of course we've got to drill in ANWR and off-shore for more oil & gas. That goes without saying.
Also, to meet the rising demand for electricity, we need more nuclear power plants ASAP. The environmental kooks have retarded progress for too long as it is. For goodness sake, even a country like France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.
But one way NOT to address the energy problem is ethanol. Ethanol is lunacy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
We cannot solve our "energy" problems with a quantum increase in the amount of oil coming from Alaska.
What is going to happen is that the market economy that is dependent upon cheap transportation is going to seriously crumble. Ohio has always had an advantage of great highways to get our product to market. Transportation was a small fraction of the cost of goods.
It is going to become that Ohio producers will not have markets in the far corners of this country or this continent. Manufacturing will slump. There will be unemployment.
For that matter, people who have to drive are going to lose their livelihoods. Truck drivers, delivery people, sales representatives–could you imagine spending $100 for a tankful of gasoline just to drive some product samples around to various accounts in the area?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ethanol is lunacy.
We do need more nuclear plants.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
"Exxon/Mobil made $40 billion in 2007. I think their net profit margin was about 9 percent. That's not a very large profit margin. It's pretty low when compared to other businesses, even though the absolute profit number is huge."
This point always seems to stick with me. When the dooms talk about the billions of dollars of profit, they never seem to mention figures for sales, taxes, etc. footed by the oil companies. It's the same deal with the Bush tax cuts. They're referred to as "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH", but somehow numbers are never disclosed as to who benefits and the word "rich" never is defined. Very effective tactics on the naive ear.
If they were to expand off-shore drilling and decrease our existing dependence, the fluctuations in pricing could not be so easily veiled and people would be held accountable. The reluctance to do so, is a clear indication that these greezy politicians are slickened with oily pockets. We could run cars on hydrogen, produced from the world's most abundant resource…….water. But then again, I'm sure the automotive manufacturers receive billions from the oil producers just to keep fuel efficiency within certain bounds. Diesel used to be the answer to fuel efficiency, but somehow the price was compensated to offset the savings. Noone wins this game. When supply is high, instead of lowering the price, they cut production to spike it. The oil company has a monopoly on our pockets, as well as our "trusted" officials.
I don't like to think about Osama raising gasoline taxes. He already has millions of individuals hypnotized and they may be bamboozled into thinking this would lower the price of gasoline. I mean, how much credit can I give to the individuals that have been swooned by his "inspiration", without the substance. It doesn't have to make sense, but once he says it does………………..the flock follows.
Be like me and ride a motorcycle throughout the summer. At least you'll have a few bucks to play with afterwards.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Taxes on windfall profits!?!?! And these wont get passed back to the customer like the rest of the taxes corporations pay?
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Did I see the god-fearing, America loving, "these colors don't run" da king just cite CNN, that godless liberal media outlet? Wow, wonders will never cease.
Yes, it will be terrible for the economy when Obama gets elected; not like now when we are sending rebate checks during a supposed war…..that makes sense. Hey everybody, let's put on a war and cut taxes throughout! Yay!
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 am
I'm topping off the tank as soon as I get my rebate check.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
King,
Does it seem to you that Rev Red has not advanced to anything beyond socialism? I see him as no different than he was 4 or more years ago.
I really liked the way you came back with statistics about drilling in the ANWR. Now it is up to Red to prove that those agencies were wrong.
I well remember how in the late 70s and early 80s my home county was overrun by those seismograph crews and in the 90s there were drilling rigs everywhere. Even more I remember how hitting natural gas, which everybody knew was there, was nearly as bad a thing as a dry hole. Then somebody constucted the lines necessary to carry natural gas out of our county to the main lines of transportation and now striking gas is just as big a thing as hitting oil is. Somehow making money is what those drillers want to do and letting them into ANWR would make them happy.
I am always amazed at the talk of our two Dem candidates about taking those profits from the oil companies, through taxation or forcing them to do more research in the renewable area, and the way they avoid telling us that the oil companies will pass those expenses to the consumer when that happens. Somehow they don't seem to understand that the business of business is business. Somehow they seem to think that taking from business will hurt only the businesses. Actually the stupidity of the Obama lovers indicates the intellectual abilities of those he has taken in with all his promises. Is Red one of them?
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
"Actually the stupidity of the Obama lovers indicates the intellectual abilities of those he has taken in with all his promises. Is Red one of them?'
Roy, that's rich coming from a guy too stupid to remember how the bushies beat up Sidney McCain with rumors back in 2000. Or to think McCain, who doesn't know the differences within the Muslim community or anything much about the economy, will do a better job than either of the democratic candidates. And you're calling Rev stupid? Typical neocon. Go listen to Rush so you can get some more ammunition.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
da Truth: Yes, it will be terrible for the economy when Obama gets elected; not like now when we are sending rebate checks during a supposed war…..that makes sense. Hey everybody, let's put on a war and cut taxes throughout! Yay!
I think the rebate check idea sucks however, the workers get their own money back rather than the government squander it on moochers. Therefore, I don't have a hard time justifying funding, for a war, over promoting laziness. A permanent tax cut, coupled with shaving some excess bureaucracy fat, would go a lot further. This will never happen until term limits are approved, but how does one convince our lawmakers to vote on a bill which would terminate their own crooked existence? Politics as usual, where liberals spend like liberals and Republicans seem to know no better.
While the rebate seems illogical to you, Osama and Shrillary keep proposing plans that only add taxation. How can that help those already feeling the pinch?
In the "unlikely" event Osama does not reach the white house…………..has there been any preparations for a mass suicide and how many recounts will be required?
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Alex, don't worry about recounts when B. Hussein Obama loses to McCain — that's assuming BO even gets pass the grasping Comrade Hillary.
The margin against BO will be so great that even the Dims won't try to overturn the results like they did in 2000 in Fla.
Of course, BO's soulmate, Farrakhan (a.k.a., Calypso Louie) will spin some conspiracy theory to explain it all. No doubt it will be the Jews that did B. Hussein Obama in.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Alex, have you ever taken a history class in your life? If this is a war, which you neocons say it is, why in the world are we cutting taxes? Please.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
da Truth: Alex, have you ever taken a history class in your life? If this is a war, which you neocons say it is, why in the world are we cutting taxes? Please.
I've taken several, Truth. Unfortunately our academia has fallen to liberal infestation and I only was able to salvage 20% of my learnings as factual.
#2, You have fun with your neocon jingle, but I've never been one. If you pay attention to my posts, I've only mentioned this several dozen times. I guess it is ok though…………..since I accurately depict Obama's following as sock puppets.
This isn't a tax cut, unfortunately. It is merely your own money back…………for the time being. Overall, it is a concept I disagree with. I'm for cutting the tax rates, cutting back certain social entitlement programs, throwing illegals back over the fence, eliminating the death tax, eliminating the marriage penalty tax, etc.
I didn't propose it, but I'll accept it. It's just extra money that the government didn't get to blow on something I disapprove of. The Iraq war excluded.
From your dismay, would it be more acceptable for the liberals to get in office and put the clamps on us with more taxes? That's an even worse answer.
For the future, just so you know what classes I've taken……..
High School diploma and BSME …….I opted for a technical field just to keep away from the kooky liberal professors, which seem to inhabit most universities.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
truth:
It's not possible to reason with foks who are hell-bent determined to turn America into Ethiopia.
It's all faith based.
Even if faith based economics destroys all hope for working families and leads our nation to the brink of depressionary economic times…..it's still working. Simply believe.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ah, Red, you are still one of the best pitchers of atheistic, socialistic crap that I know. I love it when you get out on that faith based limb that you spend so much time on. I wonder how long it will be before you manage to saw it clear off. I guess your atheist tree is pretty short so it might not hurt too bad when you hit the ground.
Get out the fork and pitch some more as it makes me laugh so hard at times.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
da truth,
About those tax rebate checks. I think you have forgotten that the Democrats were in favor of them as well. I agree they are a bad idea, and I even wrote a post about it.
As for your comment about cutting taxes while we are at war, that is only bad because the corresponsing spending cuts were not made, which drove the deficit way up. You forget that those tax cuts lifted the country from a recession for 5 years, though we are back in one now The insane part of what Bush and the Republican congress did was to keep spending like drunken sailors. That was highly irresponsible.
Now, I'd like to ask you a question. If Hillary or Obama get elected president, they plan to make enormous increases in federal spending that will make those Republicans look like pikers. Do you agree with those policies, or are you going to vote for the guy who wants to hold spending down, John McCain ?
April 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Roy,
Have you ever figured out what the Rev means with that "faith-based" stuff ? I don't see how it has anything to do with anything.
And heck Rev, you don't have to look very far to see the coming Ethiopia in America. Just go to any Democrat-run inner city, like Cleveland for example, where only 34% graduate from high school. There's your whiz bang liberal leadership at work.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Alex, I couldn't care less what you call yourself, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. The Iraq war excluded, of course. Again, nice try putting words in my mouth but I expressed no dismay, merely an observation about the ignorance of history continuously displayed by your party.
King, I like how whenever your or one of da men get challenged, it becomes "well which evil liberal are you voting for?" To make my position perfectly clear, as I have done in the past, of what's left I will vote for Obama. If he does not win the nomination, I will have to make a very difficult choice as to who to vote for. I have never voted for a bush or a clinton and I don't want to have to start now. My point in my post, as has been my consistent post generally, is your continuous attakcs on the D party when what is left of the R party is no better, especiallyfiscally. E.g., Mr. Bush, which you yourself have admitted in prior posts. It just puzzles me that you guys think McCain will be any different or any better, given his record of switching positions more than any R in recent history.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Nice point King.
If any areas in the U.S. are like Thrid World dumps [i.e., Ethiopia], they are Democrat-run inner city areas, like Cleveland, Dertoit, etc. with their high rates of illegitimacy, crime, dropout, etc.
,
April 5th, 2008 at 6:03 am
da truth,
I'm continually scratching my head over how your responses seem to have little to do with the issue at hand. Instead, you just raise general attacks against Republicans. This time is no different. You didn't even begin to address the question I asked you.
I don't know how much more I can excoriate the Bush administration's fiscal policy than I have in order to please you, but perhaps you don't understand the general gist of the blog setup. It goes like this: The Reverend runs the Blog Of Mass Destruction, which comes from the perspective of the Left. My blog offsets that, coming from the perspective of the Right. It was setup that way by intent. You could call it ohio.com's version of the Fairness Doctrine. If I spent all my time criticizing Bush and the Republicans, well, that wouldn't be very fair and balanced, would it ? There are two perspectives here (at least), not one.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Da King
I apoligize for once again lecturing you but here it goes.
To many there are only two choices 1. agree with them 2. disagree and you are automaticaley a Bushie. Your logic,facts etc. are meaningless. Rather than deal logically with the questions they tie you to Bush and that proves whatever you say is wrong and most likely indicates you are both ignorant and possilby evil as well. Have a good day
April 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
angry c,
Lecture away. I have run into the 'if you disagree with a liberal then you're a Bushbot' mindset more times than I can count. I have run into many people whose entire political philosophy revolves around hating Bush. They think if you say anything that isn't the equivalent of 'I hate Bush', then you must be the enemy. The kindest way I can describe that is to call it simplistic.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Amen
April 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
My comment on Senator Hillary Clinton and the Florida and Michigan votes. I've been following this election for quite a while now, and everytime Hillary looses a state, she starts these false accusations about Senator Obama. Senator Obama, on the other hand has stated that he intends to run a smooth and honest campaign, however, I support his need to take a stand on the accusations being thrown at him by Senator Clinton; he doesnot start any of the fights being broadcast on TV, in the newspapers and on radio, and, I do support his need to defend himself. Also, the two states which upped their primaries, "WERE PENALIZED FOR DOING SO, AND THAT PENALTY SHOULD STAY." We're in the middle of the campaign, and all of a sudden Senator Clinton thinks those votes should be counted - no way. Its because she thinks she will be in the lead, and once again, she wants to change the rules in mid-stream…
I am an Obama supporter all the way, and I think that the campaign being ran by both Clintons is "shameful." I once looked up to Bill Clinton, but, from his appearances on national TV about Senator Obama, I changed my mind.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
"I once looked up to Bill Clinton, …"
Why? He was an obvious sleazebag from the get-go.
And don't worry, Liz, just as you eventually wised up as to the nature of Clinton, with a little more time, you too should come to the realization that B. Hussein Obama is cut from the same cloth as Bill Clinton & Hillary.
Actually BO is far worse, given Obama's 20-year dedication to Rev. Wright's church of hate. Even the Clintons haven't sunk that low.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:59 am
What's shameful is the fact that Obama supporters believe the rules of a bankrupt political party are more important than the most fundamental idea of democracy–everyone gets to vote.