19 Jan

Democrats’ first step in regulating profits of all businesses [Reader Post]

                                       

Dennis Kucinich is arguably one of the most anti-American members of the United States Congress and seems continuously determined to prove it. He has introduced a plan to regulate oil company profits- or, rather to prevent them.

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

No one from the industry will have a say in what is “reasonable.”

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”

The funds seized from the oil companies would be thrown down the “alternative” toilet

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

Those supportive of this legislation are the usual brain dead groups:

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

There is no doubt that were this effort to succeed, it would be only the tip of the spear into the heart of American business and industry. Democrats would love nothing better than to impose regulations on the profits of all business in the US, deeming what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. And you would have absolutely no voice for your business.

Kucinich’s umbrage is nothing but pure idiocy. Oil company profits rise with the price of oil and no one has pushed the price of oil higher than Barack Obama. He’s said no to every single energy proposal that would succeed and has forced us all to pay for those which have all failed.

If one wanted to limit oil company profits, one would push the price of oil down, not up. If one takes away incentive to produce more oil as Kucinich would seize all the profits, one would have no incentive to provide more oil domestically.

That’d be a fun time.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Congress, Economy, Energy, Liberal Idiots, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Socialism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
| 701 views

49 Responses to Democrats’ first step in regulating profits of all businesses [Reader Post]

  1. Russell says: 1

    I think I’ll hold onto my oil stocks a bit longer. The couldn’t pass that just among the Democratic members. Far from a first step, it’s a pipe-dream at the far left fringe.

    The most anti-American congressmen aren’t those who hate use for our profits, but those who hate us for our liberties. And there, those on the far right keep apace those on the far left.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    The 80 year old Tax Foundation did a study about oil and gas taxes back in 2010.
    Their Key Findings
    • Data from the Energy Information Administration show that governments in the U.S. and abroad are hugely dependent upon the direct and indirect taxes paid by the largest consolidated oil companies, and that between 1981 and 2008 these tax payments exceeded corporate profits by 40 percent.

    Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments.

    • Profits and income tax payments mirror the price of oil. In 1998 when the price was low, the industry paid just $733 million in federal and state income taxes. In 2006, with the real price of oil averaging over $63 per barrel, the industry paid a record $37 billion in corporate income taxes.

    • Excise tax collections have grown steadily. Between 1981 and 2008, $1.1 trillion was collected in excise and sales taxes on petroleum products. In 1999 governments collected $59 billion, more than twice the industry’s net profits that year.

    Take a look at Figure 5 on the PDF (If your computer can call up pDFs)
    Note which parts of the world have been upping their tax take on oil?
    It is the Middle East, Africa and Europe and the Former Soviet Union.

    Norway gets fully 30% of its entire GDP from taxes from oil companies.
    Norway subjects oil companies to both the general corporate tax rate of 28 percent and an additional special tax of 50 percent.
    In Saudi Arabia, the standard corporate income tax rate is 20 percent but the tax rate for companies engaged in oil production is 85 percent.
    Democrats want to ignore these taxes at the point of extraction and pretend it was all profit and income.
    Then tax it all ….again…..here.

    But already U.S. oil companies are among the largest taxpayers in the country, both in terms of their direct income tax payments and in terms of how much indirect tax they remit to federal, state, and local governments.
    In fact, the U.S. collected more in taxes from the oil industry between 1981 and 2008 than the industry earned in profits for their shareholders.
    In most years, the amount of excise taxes the companies remitted alone exceeded their net profits.

    Last April, just before April 15th, Forbes added this fact:

    ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, all endure income tax burdens of more than 40%–higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%.
    ExxonMobil

    Pretax income: $52 billion
    Provision for income taxes (worldwide): $21.6 billion
    Net income: $30.5 billion
    Income tax rate: 45%

    Exxon estimates its total worldwide tax bill for 2010 at $89 billion, including the provision for income taxes noted above. Most of that $89 billion total is sales and excise taxes. Of $10 billion in total taxes paid in the U.S., $3 billion is income tax.

    ConocoPhillips

    Pretax income: $19.8 billion
    Provision for income taxes: $8.3 billion
    Net income: $11.4 billion
    Tax rate: 42%

    Of the world’s biggest companies, Big Oil pays the highest tax rates. Plus they get hit for a plethora of non-income taxes (think excise tax and value-added tax). Conoco’s “other taxes” hit $16.8 billion last year.

    Chevron

    Pretax income: $32 billion
    Provision for income taxes: $12.9 billion
    Net income: $19.1 billion
    Tax rate: 40%

    Chevron’s “other” taxes totaled $18.2 billion in 2010. Would it be fair for politicians to add a “windfall profits” tax on top of that?

    ReplyReply
  3. by not giving permits now, and delay here and there, I hope they are not out to screw CANADA,
    when they start coming with the oil, THEN THEY CAN FIND ALL KIND OF WAY TO implement
    charges extra to the deal, by using the ENVIRONNEMENT EXCUSE, THEY USE BEFORE,
    TOO bad that CANADA IS LOOSING ALREADY BILLIONS BY WAITING FOR SANTA CLAUS TO GIVE THE PERMIT, because IT WOULD BE ADVISEBLE FOR CANADA TO WAIT FOR A PRESIDENT THEY CAN TRUST THE WORD EVEN WITHOUT PAPER, AND THAT IS IN NOVEMBER , QUITE FAR ENOUGH TO BE WAITING AND LOOSING MORE BILLIONS, WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING? THAT THE OIL COMPANY CAN GO ON LOOSING THOSE BILLIONS BECAUSE OF HIS DITHERING, THEY SURELY DON’T TRUST HIM NOW I ‘m sure,
    AND HE BETTER NOT TRY TO SCREW THEM with their skeem of green color ONCE THEY ARE IN THE PROJECT INSIDE USA
    there already are billions spend and more until the ball roll.
    let’s deal honestly not bullies style,

    ReplyReply
  4. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 4

    And in other news, Government Motors is once again the largest selling auto maker in the world:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gm-once-again-top-selling-automaker/2012/01/19/gIQAp3b1BQ_story.html

    ReplyReply
  5. Randy says: 5

    @Nan G: Nan, statistics do not mater to the lefties with an agenda of punishing success to give to those who do not or will not get off of their butts. And everyone on the left wonders why companies are moving off shore!

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 6

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: And the US government sold their shares at a loss. Great investment! Did you buy any of those shares for your 401K, Larry?

    ReplyReply
  7. Randy
    hi,
    I was reading in a CANADIAN NEWS PAPER THAT FOREIGN INVESTERS ARE RUSHING TO BY CANADIAN’S BONDS, THEY SAID WAS FAVORED BECAUSE OF RELIABLE AND TOP 1 CREDIT SECURED
    BY THOSE WHO ASSES CREDIT STANDING IN COUNTRIES, CANADA HIS ONE OF ELEVEN WITH THAT TOP RATING. I JUMP IN BECAUSE OF YOUR COMMENT TELL ME THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED TO KNOW,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  8. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 8

    Hi Randy, If you compare/contrast the amount of money lost to the US treasury from the auto bailouts compared to the amount lost from any tax cut you would care to choose, I believe that you’ll find that the auto bailouts were among the most cost effective measures ever taken by the US government, in terms of improving the US economy.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  9. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 9

    Hi Bees,

    CANADA HIS ONE OF ELEVEN WITH THAT TOP RATING.

    I like Canada. Very happy to have them for a neighbor, friend, and ally. Glad to hear that they are doing so well.

    – Larry W/HB

    ReplyReply
  10. mos 8541 says: 10

    Has anyone ever asked Dennis what hhis sexual preference was? Suprise………………………………

    ReplyReply
  11. there is another worry I think about it is how OBAMA is close to the VENEZUELLA OIL COMPANIES ALSO,
    AND BREZIL ECETERA THAT WAY,AND WANT THEM IN , MORE, FOR SOME REASON OF HIS OWN NOT OF JOBS FOR THE USA, MAYBE THEIR POLITICS APPEAL TO HIM.

    ReplyReply
  12. RANDY
    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    I made an error in the CANADA STANDARD RATING CREDIT IT IS NOT NUMBER 1
    IT IS TRIPLE A ; FOREIGN INVESTORS INCREASED THEIR BOND HOLDINGS BY A
    NET 6.2 BILLION IN NOVEMBER ALSO THE MOST SINCE MAY. THE FEDERAL AGENCY REPORTED,
    THE EUROZONE DOWNGRADED MOVE LEFT CANADA AS ONE OF ONLY ELEVEN COUNTRIES WITH A TRIPLE A CREDIT RATING FROM ALL THREE MAJOR RATING AGENCIES.
    NOW I copied it from the paper to be more accurate.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 13

    If the Federal government does set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” for the oil companies, shouldn’t there also be a “Reasonable Loss Board” that regulates how much they are allowed to loose? The more they loose, the lower their taxes should be, down to 0%.

    ReplyReply
  14. Randy says: 14

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you changed the subject. We were talking about successful companies, not taxes. Government Moters is not a profitable company when it is still subsidized by tax payers. Just because it is producing some product that people buy compared to the wind and solar energy companies that don’t produce anything now they are going bankrupt and our intelligent president has subjuctated our interests to those of his crony’s investment doesn’t mean it is successful. It needs to be self supporting and showing a profit to be successful.

    ReplyReply
  15. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 15

    Hi Randy, GM cleared $4.7 billion in 2010 and I’m sure did much better than that in 2011 (I don’t think that they’ve posted their 4th Q earnings yet).

    77% of our economy is service. Only 22% is manufacturing. Of the manufacturing sector, 20% is automotive.

    The US government doesn’t spend tax money to make a profit. It spends tax money to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. When we build freeways, we don’t collect tolls which go back to the government. We build freeways to promote the general welfare. You can think of manufacturing as being an essential component of the nation’s economic infrastructure. It was well worth whatever it ends up costing the treasury to save 20% of the nation’s manufacturing base.

    It’s not a foregone conclusion that the US will lose any money on the GM bailout, by the way. We still hold GM stock, and if the GM stock price rises to $50 a share, the government will be whole (it’s currently trading near $25).

    We’ve only been talking about GM. The Chrysler bailout is working out just fine, also. The US government and Fiat saved Chrysler. Chrysler is now saving Fiat. And Chrysler/Fiat is tooling up to produce 20,000 Maserati luxury cars per year for worldwide export. Where will they be built? As the commercial goes, “imported from Detroit.”

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/a-detroit-made-maserati-meet-the-kubang-suv/1

    Here’s a thought experiment:

    Poll the nation’s top 100 economic experts and ask them, “in retrospect, was the auto bailout worth it?”

    Poll the nation’s top 100 geopolitical/national defense experts and ask them, “in retrospect, was the Iraq War worth it?”

    That’s it. I said it was just a thought experiment.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  16. Aqua says: 16

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    So this should be the business plan for the government now. Violate the fifth amendment, screw the preferred bondholders in favor of the unions, sell the shares at a loss, and call it a success. Very nice.

    ReplyReply
  17. Randy says: 17

    @Aqua: That is what the government did during the Auto company bailouts. The only winners were Obam’s union. Check out the ownership of GM Larry. GM will not survive without continuous government support. If they had gone through bankruptcy, they could be a viable company without having to depend on the government. Ford on the other hand is a viable auto company.

    ReplyReply
  18. Smorgasbord says: 18

    @Randy: #17
    This is why, when I needed to buy a pickup, it was a Ford. This is the first Ford I have bought. I usually keep my vehicles until they aren’t worth much for trade-in, so I am concerned about quality. Ford is making it into the top 10 ratings of quality now. I don’t know or care where GM or Chrysler rate. I can’t remember when they were on the list. Also, Obama already is taking too much of my money. Why would I want to give him more?

    ReplyReply
  19. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 19

    Hi Randy. There was no violation of the 5th Amendment. Where do you get that idea? The GM Board of Directors was under no obligation to accept money from the US Government. The government did not “seize” or “nationalize” GM or Chrysler. GM couldn’t find anyone in the private sector to lend them money. They had the choice between going belly up, going for an “orderly bankruptcy,” or accepting a government buy in. It was the GM Board of Directors which made the decision on behalf of their shareholders and bond holders.

    You are irate that the “unions” got a better deal than the bondholders. Do you understand who the “unions” are? They are the workers. In the case of the bank bailouts, Wall Street bankers, investors, and bondholders were the winners. In the case of the auto bailouts, the workers (i.e. Main Street) got the better deal.

    European banks just agreed voluntarily to accept a 70% haircut on Greek debt. This was a conscious decision on their part. Same thing in the case of the GM Board of Directors, who had a fiduciary responsibility not just to bondholders but also to shareholders. Bonds pay a higher yield than T Bills. That’s because they entail a degree of risk. Sometimes bondholders lose money.

    But the GM deal was pure capitalism. The GM Board tried to make a go of it, along the lines of Ford. They couldn’t do it. Their only choices were liquidation or accept investment of last resort (i.e. from the government).

    So the workers got the better deal, for a change. This bugs the heck out of you. No one held a gun to the GM Board. They made the best deal that they could.

    Ford said that their own viability was threatened, if GM had gone under. Ford depends on a supply chain. The supply chain would gone under, had GM gone under. Ford didn’t give the supply chain enough business for the supply chain to survive.

    Obama saved the auto industry. 20% of our entire manufacturing base. It was the right thing to do. As I said, do the thought experiment I proposed in #15.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 20

    @Smorgasbord: If the Federal government does set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” for the oil companies, shouldn’t there also be a “Reasonable Loss Board” that regulates how much they are allowed to loose? The more they loose, the lower their taxes should be, down to 0%.

    LOL!
    Remember Dennis doesn’t want any oil company execs on his “Reasonable Profits Board” for the oil companies.
    So, maybe we should set up a “Reasonable Spending Board,” to watch over government spending…..and not allow any politicians on that board!

    ReplyReply
  21. another vet says: 21

    Here is the breakdown of the GM loan. Trying to imply they paid back the entire loan is false. They were only suppose to pay back a small portion of it and that was done with another loan. In other words, they used a Visa to pay off their Master Charge. As for saving the auto industry, had they gone out of business, people wouldn’t have stopped buying automobiles. They merely would have went to other manufacturers thereby increasing those companies’ share of the market. It would have been rough going at first, but the market would have adjusted and the jobs lost by GM would have been picked up other companies as the demand for their products increased. When TWA, which was the largest or one of the largest airlines in the world at one time went out of business, airline customers didn’t stop flying, they merely flew other airlines.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

    ReplyReply
  22. liberalmann says: 22

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Thanks to Obama. All the GOP candidates said it should have been allowed to fail. Yeah, they care about the middle class, don’t they?

    ReplyReply
  23. Liberalmann
    the CONSERVATIVES DO SURELY CARE MORE THAN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS,
    you just have to look around you when the line of unemployeds has become for no one to see the end of it,
    check it up

    ReplyReply
  24. Randy says: 24

    @liberalmann: Allowing a company to go into bankruptcy doesn’t mean they go out of business. It means the reorganize and retool the company. What happened in this case is that Obama took over the bankruptcy and blackmailed the bond holders who were the primary lien holders to not file suit. Instead, he put his union buddies in a position to not lose anything while the bond holders who are essential in short term financing of corporations lost everything.

    The union wages and health benefits are what ran GM into bankruptcy in the first place. Did you know that people who were laid off received 90% of their pay and had the opportunity to not move to a new location where there was a job? Who do you think is paying the bill for Obama’s financing of GM? It is the middle class dummy! The precedence Obama set for the bankruptcy of GM will come back to bite the US. Why would anyone provide short term financing to a company that is having troubles if they run the risk of the government dismissing their claim?

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @Nan G: #20
    In my dream wold, the USA is divided into two parts that are equal in every way, except that one of the halves is run 100% by liberals, and the other half is run by conservatives. How long would it be before the USA would be like North Korea and South Korea, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, East Berlin and West Berlin, etc.? Which half would be thriving, and which have would be like communism? It would be interesting to give a part of the USA to each party and let them run it the way they want and see what happens.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 26

    Why such a dream world, Smorgasbord? One can see the difference just comparing, say Wyoming, Texas etc to the urban coastal liberal states like MA, NY, CA.

    ReplyReply
  27. another vet says: 27

    @Smorgasbord: I’ve often wondered that myself. A past article by Walter Williams that addresses that very issue. An interesting read to say the least that would make for an interesting thread. As for your proposal, I believe one country would flourish and the other one would flounder. Venture a guess as to which one would flounder?

    http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/walter-27841-americans-williams.html

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 28

    @MataHarley: #26
    That would be a simple way. That reminds me of one article I read that said that all of the states that don’t have an income tax are doing just fine. That tells me that the Fair Tax will work. They should have called it a Federal income tax so people would understand it better.

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 29

    @MataHarley: #26
    I meant to say Federal sales tax, not Federal income tax. Where did he edit feature go?

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @another vet: #27
    You knew my answer before you asked the question. I will read the article late. It is late and I haven’t eaten yet.

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord
    no no, don’t eat yet you have to read it before, and let us know your point on it, before you eat,
    you can eat tomorrow
    bye

    ReplyReply
  32. another vet
    hi,
    that is very interesting to learn
    thank you,
    south ?

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord says: 33

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #31
    Too late. I can leave the article on my computer desktop for a long time and nothing will happen to it. Not so with not filling an empty belly. Take care of your belly and it will take care of you.

    ReplyReply
  34. another vet says: 34

    Bees #32,

    I’m from the North.  The People’s Republic of Illinois to be exact.  The article definitely makes one think.  He brought up some very good points although the potential solution can probably be perceived as radical.

    ReplyReply
  35. another vet

    hi,

    yes radical wont be a wrong word for fixing    the broken pieces of AMERICA,

    and  one think of it ,it show how far they have gone in the destruction of this beautiful USA,

    BUT I know it will be not

    nessesary to get there, because of the PATRIOTS OF THIS AMERICA,

    ReplyReply
  36. johngalt says: 36

    Larry, why, in your post #4, do you bring an unrelated news item to this topic. You failed to speak at all about Kucinich’s bill, or on how this would affect the oil/gas industry, or how it would affect the price of fuel for the public.

     

    For everyone else, just stop and think about this for a minute. Kucinich wants to create a “Reasonable Profits Board”. Just one more example of Rand’s Atlas Shrugged coming to real life. Kinda makes me think that Kucinich actually read the book, but rooted for the bad guys while reading it.

    ReplyReply
  37. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 37

    The sequence is bonds produce labor not the other way around.  There was a government force taking of the bonds at a highly discounted bankruptsy rate of exchange (theft).  Free open exchange of those bonds was cornered by the government so as to pave the means for the UAW to take command of the industry.   Similar manuevers occurred with I.G. Fargan  in Nazi Germany and the Mitzui keiretzu during Imperial Japan.   Historically, it is true that the previous cases the labor unions were excluded which indicates that the economic evolution has occurred that allow for the change.  A labor dominated keiretzu is still a keiretzu and as Mussilini proved when all the wine glasses are filled what’s next? Ethiopia!

    Dennis the K is independently super rich, he married a multi-million dollars debutant Jacobin member of the SDS (Students for Democratic Society) who keeps the butter in the fridge

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord

    so, you want to inflate your belly by being good to it,  well that will go to his head and it will

    get your pants  angry because all they want is to fit.

    bye

    ReplyReply
  39. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 39

    Hi John Galt (#36): I didn’t comment on the latest iteration of the old, misguided “windfall profits tax,” because Nan (#2) did a great, comprehensive job critiquing it.  I basically agree with Nan’s post.  The most important consideration is that the oil industry’s profits are already subject to taxation. If there is a crisis in the MidEast and the price of oil spikes because of it and ExxonMobil suddenly finds that it is making lots more money on the oil it’s already pumped, then that is, indeed, a “windfall” profit — however it is a profit which will be taxed — meaning that the Federal government shares in the windfall.

    Kucinich is a socialist.  I don’t agree that he’s “un-American.”  I’m sure that Kucinich is every bit as patriotic as anyone who contributes to this blog.  But he’s a true socialist (unlike Obama) and he advocates socialistic policies, with many of which I disagree, including the present one.

    I do have a major quarrel with the following statement (DrJohn’s “readers post,” above):

    “…no one has pushed the price of oil higher than Barack Obama. He’s said no to every single energy proposal that would succeed and has forced us all to pay for those which have all failed.”

    The author of the above statement doesn’t understand how oil is priced.  Oil is always priced at world levels.  US domestic production is only 10% of world oil production.  Let’s say that Obama’s policies have impeded US oil production by 10% (a wild exaggeration).  That would mean 1% less oil and a 1% price increase.  With regard to the Canadian oil/Keystone issue, here’s a nice explanation:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/2011/12/19/gIQApUAX8P_story_1.html

    “If we don’t build the pipeline and buy their oil, the Canadians will sell it to China.

    “So what? World oil prices depend on how much oil is produced — not who sells what to whom. Whether the United States or China buys oil at the world price from Canada or Brazil or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria won’t affect U.S. economic fortunes. Some argue that buying oil from Canada rather than elsewhere would shrink the yawning U.S. trade deficit, since Canadians are more likely than others to spend their petro-profits in the United States. But Canada gets richer no matter whether it sells its oil to American or Chinese consumers, and its newfound wealth spills over to the U.S. economy regardless. What ultimately matters to our economy is not whether the United States or China buys oil from Canada — it’s whether Canada produces and sells that oil at all.

    “The fate of the Keystone XL pipeline will be of limited consequence to either long-term U.S. energy security or climate change (though its rejection will probably be ugly for U.S.-Canada relations). The Keystone decision ultimately became far more about symbolism than substance. It’s a shame that so much attention was diverted from things that matter more.”

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

     

    ReplyReply
  40. openid.aol.com/runnswim

    hi. diverted from thing that matter more?   like jobs for AMERICA WITH KEYSTONE?

    at the bottom of it all,  it is all one  package deal,  CANADA BEING CLOSER TO THE USA, SHOULD HAVE A PRIORITY ON OIL TO USA, BECAUSE IT ALWAYS HAVE SHOWN TO HAVE THE USA BACK ON OTHER LESS  BUSYNESS PROFITS DEALS LIKE THE WARS, TO MENTIONED ONLY ONE OF THOSE, BESIDE BEING STRATEGIC SITUATED FOR THE FUTURE CONFLICTS COMING FROM THE NORTH, and from other invasive COUNTRIES ALREADY AT WORK MAPPING THE TREASURES OF THE UNDERSEA, SOME STILL UNDER ICE,,

    SO IT IS beneficial that the good trustful neighbor exchange is maintained among the leaders,

    no matter the size of each other

    AMERICA IS THE ELEPHANT WHEN HE HAS A FLEE CANADA SCRATCH ITSELF,  THAT’S AN OLD SAYING, TO SAY HOW CLOSE WE ARE

    BYE

     

     

     

    ReplyReply
  41. MataHarley says: 41

    Larry, while I agree that no POTUS has control over the price per barrel, which obviously effects the price at the pump, there are things we can do to lessen that.

    One would be, of course, to slash the federal taxes on gas/gallons at the pump. Apparently it’s not enough to deal with the federal DOT since they insist our infrastructure is falling apart anyway, yes?

    The second would be to lessen the delivery costs of raw crude to the refineries. You and I have argued about this before… you saying that shipping it via supership from the ME is negligible. I’ve provided links and evidence to the contrary. Obviously, the closer the crude source is, and the more affordable the transport costs (ahem.. can you say Keystone?), the better the price to the refineries, which DOES affect the price at the pump.

    The third is the obvious… exploit US oil sources, which also jives with the second point above.

    Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious?

    ReplyReply
  42. Smorgasbord says: 42

    Another Vet #27

    I read the article, but I was just talking about the economics in the two different parts of the country.  He went into the idea of trying to control people.  Which one would do better financially is what I was getting at.  It would be interesting to try.

    ReplyReply
  43. Smorgasbord says: 43

    Bees #38

    I learned a long time ago I have to keep the belly happy or it will get even with me.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord

    yes you’re right,  the best way to a happy day

    is from a happy belly,

    that’s what I call poetry,  I must be improving,

    I got it perfect

    bye

    ReplyReply
  45. Greg says: 45

    Kucinich’s umbrage is nothing but pure idiocy. Oil company profits rise with the price of oil and no one has pushed the price of oil higher than Barack Obama. He’s said no to every single energy proposal that would succeed and has forced us all to pay for those which have all failed.

    If one wanted to limit oil company profits, one would push the price of oil down, not up. If one takes away incentive to produce more oil as Kucinich would seize all the profits, one would have no incentive to provide more oil domestically.

    The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum.  Our total annual petroleum exports began exceeding our total annual petroleum imports last year.

    Increased domestic production for increased national energy security is one thing.  Pushing the rate of production of a finite national resource higher so that corporations can boost their short-term profits by selling it more cheaply overseas is a different kettle of fish.

    ReplyReply
  46. openid.aol.com/runnswim

    hi,

    you know, the KEYSTONE IS NOT FOR OBAMA OR YOU,  IT’S FOR THE STATES WHO WANT IT,

    MONTANA AS THE OTHER ALSO  NEBRASKA, AND TEXAS AND OTHER LIKE HOUSTON TOO

    BYE

     

    ReplyReply
  47. MataHarley says: 47

    Greg, considering the refineries have to IMPORT the crude to refine, before they can process, what makes you think your link is either relevant to the price of oil, or a good thing?

    Let me put this in a simple fashion for you… I bought enough Egyptian cotton to make 3 million bed sheet sets at market price, and didn’t have the market to sell it all in the US because everyone was broke, and not buying the sheet sets I projected. So I had to turn around and export the excess (with possible tariffs and shipping costs and likely at a loss…) because of that.

    Did I affect my import/buying of goods bottom line because I over ordered for projected sales and inventory? Or did I pay the foreign source the same price for the cotton, even tho I over ordered? It’s a simple question. Take your time and ponder…. When you figure out that exporting excess refined products has nothing to do with the price that the refineries pay (because the US doesn’t produce enough domestic oil to supply our refineries) for their imported crude to refine, let us know.

    duh

    ReplyReply
  48. Smorgasbord says: 48

    Greg #45

    I will first say that I know NOTHING about marketing or oil exporting and importing, but it seems to me that instead of exporting oil, we should be reducing the amount we import.  In other words, instead of exporting 54,000 barrels of oil a day, why don’t we just not import 54,000 barrels of oil a day?  Are we paying less for what we import than what we are getting for what we export?

    It is like the Federal government giving grants to states.  Instead of going through all of the paperwork and everything else to get the money to the states, why not just tell the state not send the Federal government that amount of money?

    ReplyReply
  49. johngalt says: 49

    Greg

    You do realize that the article you linked is talking about Petroleum Products, don’t you? The US is still a net importer, by a very large margin, of crude oil. The US economy uses about 18-19 million barrels of oil per day, with about 9 million barrels imported, though that figure varies somewhat. Now, sure, some of that imported crude becomes a refined product that the US imports, but we aren’t just talking about Gasoline. We are also talking about those items that require very little refining, or are the by-products of the first stages in oil refining, such as home heating oil and higher sulfur content diesel, or motor oils, or equipment lubricating oils.

    Now, just speaking about crude oil, and crude oil only, the US exports roughly 35 thousand barrels a day. Compare that to the 9 million barrels imported daily, and you see that we aren’t even close to becoming a net exporter of that particular commodity.  The US is, by far, the largest refiner of crude oil in the world. Recently, the US capacity has drooped to 18 million barrels a day, while the next largest refiners, Russia and China, refine around 7-8 million barrels a day.

    It is worth mentioning, as well, that different countries refineries are set up for different products. For example, the US refining capacity is mainly geared towards motor gasoline, while Europe, on the other hand, is set up for a more equal mix of gasoline, diesel, and other finished oil products. What this means is that the US , in individual categories of finished oil products, is sometimes a net importer and sometimes a net exporter. It all depends on which particular finished oil product one is talking about.

    If you want to discuss TOTAL oil imports vs. exports, it’s still not even close. The US still imports around 10 million barrels combined crude and finished product vs. just under 3 million barrels combined crude and finished product exported.

    Your “different kettle of fish” is a total non-starter as it isn’t even the truth. Of course, you tend to do this kind of thing quite often in that you grab some headline somewhere and do not read the article closely enough to actually understand it. Then, you tend to spout off on something and make claims that the article, or info, doesn’t even support. And aren’t you the one claiming to be in his 60’s? You’d think that after that many years, that you’d actually understand more than you actually do.

    And just for your perusal, in case you thought I was pulling false numbers out of thin air, here’s some links:

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_nus-z00_mbblpd_w.htm

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/100726/top-7-us-oil-importers

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27193095/World-Refining-Capacity-by-Country

    http://www.gasandoil.com/news/features/36151f19474f6d3484a7028b034c46c2

     

    If you need more I’m sure that I can Google that for you as well. Reading comprehension can be a bitch sometimes, can’t it?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>