Real objective journalism there, MSNBC. Of course, as usual, taking advantage of the average voter's ignorance about what these ex-Senators are doing in their retirement.

What was that about Andrea Mitchell being a lib again???

But according to some MSNBC is very fair. Fair my A.

JLyons I will turn this back on you ;-)

Some on here do not like MSNBC to be criticized. Are you sure you are not defending FOX?

You're doing it again, even after it's been explained to you.

JuliaJayne explained to you that it was not defense of MSNBC, but your unfair attacks on Keith Olbermann that happened.

No one has ever said (despite your assertion that "some say") that MSNBC cannot be attacked, or that those who call any particular attack on MSNBC fair are supporters of Fox News.

Considering that you claim that you don't want to continue this fight, why are you continuing this fight? Why throw a low blow on a new thread if you don't want to continue the fight? Maybe because you're not being honest about truly not wanting to participate in the nastiness?

Just stop. When you find yourself wanting to make a personal attack on me or JuliaJayne, just stop. Live with your own history, that you blatantly attacked Keith Olbermann for no good reason and repeatedly on threads that had nothing to do with him. Stop trying to attack others because they accurately pointed out your shortcomings - I even copied your own words, for god's sake. You have not been smeared by me. Get over it. You say you don't want to participate? Then stop!

Sue/Ellie/nomonbush

the only one who should stop is you. You keep bringing up Keith Olbermann and Julia, Give it a break Sue/Ellie/notthatgeorge and whatever sockpuppet you are now.

JuliaJayne explained to you that it was not defense of MSNBC, but your unfair attacks on Keith Olbermann that happened.

Bottleblonde, I know you hate me, i am sorry i took your parking space at the mall. Please tell me again what does Keith olbermann have to do with this thread? Where did i mention him on this thread?

"A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies........"

Exactly, it solves nothing except we will pay it at the pump.  Corporations don't pay higher taxes, their consumers do.  To think it stops at their gilded doors is naive. 

Right on, Tommy. Either prices would rise or supply would fall, or both. 

I'm "sure" that the gov, especially a Dem one, would ensure that the windfall tax revenues would go to "reinvestment". Just like the social security money stayed for social security.

Wow, that's disingenuous.  You must have forgot that it was a Dem who proposed the SS lockbox and it was repub congresses that raided the trust fund year after year. 

it solves nothing except we will pay it at the pump.

Proof please?  Or is this just another theory pulled out of your a**?

It's what happened when Carter got profit taxes passed. Do you need a lesson in Econ 101?

Why do you think a company would just pay more in taxes and leave prices the same? They will simply make money in another country. 

Hilarious. someone needs proof that a windfall tax on big oil will not simply be re-routed to the consumer. Mr. Leghorn obviously has much confidence in the nobility of the oil companies. Naive? Naw!!!!

Amid low oil prices, the tax was ended in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan

Looks like the sky didn't fall when it was enacted back in the 1980's.

"Why do you think a company would just pay more in taxes and leave prices the same? They will simply make money in another country."

Wouldn't it be just a tad diffucult to pass a "Windfall Profits" tax on to the customers?  You would be charging more, which means your profits would be even higher, which means you could be paying more in WP taxes.  A properly structured WP tax would not be assessed until AFTER a business has calculated it's profit...so it would not be a legitimate business expense to be deducted BEFORE caluculating profit.

Dex:  What about Reagan's windfall profits tax?

Which only goes to show that it's a cartel, not an industry.

It's not supply and demand.  It's not market forces.  There is no competition.  It's a cartel.

It's a cartel holding consumers and industries hostage to redistribute wealth to themselves.  And their profits are ensured by American politicians ready and willing to send our most economically less-fortunate young men and women to die at taxpayer expense to secure the resources for them.

When their executives appear before Congress to account for it, they can make up whatever reasons they want.  Whether it's "reinvestment," "global competition," or "we can't drill where we want to drill."  They've got a lock box chock full of contingencies to divert the blame away from an $80,000 per-minute profit.

There are no solutions and I refuse to believe any candidate who says there are.  We are truly screwed and we're going to get screwed even more. 

 

There's a ton of competition in the global oil market. Are you serious? Exxon isn't even that big of a company, relative to the size of some in Russia and the Middle East. 

Are you going to say that PC makers are cartels? Cellphone companies? Please. 

Actually, you're right, there is competition, only it's not the kind of competition that benefits the consumer and dependent industries. 

It's a competition to see who can charge the most, make the most profit, and give the biggest compensation packages to their executives, similar to the health care insurance industry.

Are you going to say that PC makers are cartels? Cellphone companies? Please.

Apple meet orange.  Please.

I neglected to go there.  PC manufacturers and cell phone providers fiercely compete for our dollars, it's a well-known fact. 

Aside from a Safeway card discount, which I've heard amounts to a loss on the gas that gets made up from the required grocery purchase, there's vitrually no competitive environment when it comes to selling gas. 

I mean, these 2 are already there to defend the companies, so I don't think anyone was fooled as to what "side" they support.

Were they represented as paid representatives of the oil industry, whose job it is to defend the industry and deflect criticism?

Fair enough. Certainly wouldn't have hurt the story for your points to be mentioned, I just think the difference is more in emphasis instead of identification.

The difference is more of journalism versus propaganda. 

So where were the two panelists who held a differing view?

Senate Republicans just blocked action on the windfall profits bill, as part of their ongoing program of making sure the Reid-Pelosi Congress does not accomplish anything for the American People:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html

Remember that next time you fill your tank, and especially remember it in November.

Save America.  Vote Democratic.

And the talkers will scream once again that this is a 'do-nothing' Congress. And their stupid fans will eat and drink it all up like the ignorant and stupid little subjects they are.

Rinse. Repeat.

Wait, whoa. You just implied something I didn't know. Windfall profits taxes will lower the price of gas at the pump? Wow!

Wait, whoa. You just implied something I didn't know. Windfall profits taxes will lower the price of gas at the pump? Wow!

No. It means that the next time you're filling up, looking at the price, and complaining that no one is doing anything about it, you should remember that the Republicans in the Senate are blocking action on virtually everything.  And that they should ALL be voted out of office.

(BTW, Carter's windfall profits tax might have reduced prices  if he had been re-elected in 1980.  Insatead, Reagan did everything he could to screw things up for the American People, all in the interest of making more money for his friends/contributors.)

Ridiculous. The Carter windfall tax was not repealed until 1988. Furthermore Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. I'm all for finding out ways to end this ridiculous charade the oil companies put on us. Out utility companies don't get to make a 10% profit margin when selling that kin dof volume of a necessity, why should big oil. That being said, it is silly to think that by just taxing them that the tax won't be passed on to us.

Wow. Owned.

The Carter induced WPT in 1980 only realized 20% of what is was projected to produce.  Business proved it will not support an infrastructure for the purpose of supporting government.  A WPT in the short-run would do little to change the price of gasoline, it might even increase it, as it did in the 80's as companies reduced production and focused iinvestment elsewhere.  It would only be a boon for the government - a new source of revenue. In the long-run taxing an oil company on higher than average profits during a given period of time will affect business investment for the future. That, in turn, lowers investment in oil, raising the price at the pump, lowering wages, and lowering returns to investors. After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers, is the primary focus of business.

Even though I disagree with proposing a windfall profit tax on oil companies, transparency is still important. MMFA is right on that particular matter.

After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers or relieving consumers, is the primary focus of business.

Fixed your comment.

After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers or relieving consumers, is the primary focus of business.

Thanks - but no thanks.  Free market forces will set the price.  Though I too am stung and perplexed by the recent prices at the pump I do believe in the free market system.  When government interveins in the free market is rarely does more good than harm. 

Free market forces will set the price. 

Not in this case.  You have people speculating in the commodities market who are wreaking havoc on oil prices.  That's why gas prices have no correlation to supply and demand.

Interesting.  I may be old-fashioned, but I seem to remember that in the supply-demand model, as demand drops so does price.  Well, demand is dropping--some might say sharple--in this country for gasoline, but the price keeps going up.  Of course, they have several musical-chairs-style rotating rationalizations for the failure of the free-market system--weak dollar, demand in China (did all the workers in China go out and buy SUVs the day Katrina hit New Orleans?), tight supplies worldwide, lack of refining capacity in the US (even though they're not even operating at capacity now?), somebody slipped on a banana peel in Nigeria--and since the attention span of the American citizen can be reasonably measured in nanoseconds, no one calls them to account, especially when pandering media wh!res like Andrea Mitchell give their lobbyists a free pass with no one from the opposing side to call them on their musical rationalizations...

And no, the WPT would not bring down prices for the consumer, since they would, unfortunately, pass it on to us, but frustration at oil company arrogance is starting to boil.  I know it's a crazy solution, but since these executives are weakening the American economy in time of war merely for profit, how about a few treason trials for them, with appropriate punishments upon conviction?

but I seem to remember that in the supply-demand model, as demand drops so does price.  Well, demand is dropping--some might say sharple--in this country for gasoline, but the price keeps going up.

You are correct however oil is a worldwide commodity, and it is the blood of industrialism.  The gains we are making in the US by reducing demand are being erased by the increasing worldwide requirements.

how about a few treason trials for them, with appropriate punishments upon conviction

Oil comany exec's seem to be hauled before congress annually - nothing ever comes of it.

OOPS - forgot this link.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/dumb-or-ill-informed.html

I would love to see some examples of how gov't regulation does so much harm, but unrestrained free market capitalism does such wonderful things.  Do you disagree that the deregulation of the banking industry lead to the S&L collapse?  Or the deregulation of the energy industry lead to the Enron fiasco?  Or the deregulation of the mortgage industry lead to the housing collapse?  On and on.  And, in the big picture, do you really think the economic costs associated with human health damage from a polluted environment are smaller than the amount of money an industry would lose from having to operate in a clean and safe manner? 

Furthermore, there is already an abysmal record in this country of dirty industries such as energy exploration and production not paying their true costs of business.  They already get away with passing on huge costs to the general public in the form of environmental damage that causes human health damage, ecological damage, regional economic damage, etc.  If they were made to pay for the true costs of their operations, the bill would be massive.  In reality, they barely scratch the surface and still whine and moan about too much regulation.  Give me a break.  

My point is that what's good for business (profits) is not always good for the consumer. In other words, the notion that private self-interest will invariably lead to public good is utter nonsense. I also believe in a healthy capitalistic society, but I'm no free market fundamentalist. I am also against this WPT tax , that doesn't mean I oppose govt. intervention if a good solution comes up. As Tommy would say, we simply disagree. 

Stop red-tape blocking of refineries. That's the first step. Then we'll realize whether there really is a supply problem or not. If there is a supply problem (which if there isn't, there will be if nothing changes), offer tax rewards to companies and BIG rewards to individual inventors who QUICKLY develop even cleaner technologies to drill and deliver oil. 

Dex, you have one part right at least, the refining capacity has been the same or decreasing, partly due to enviromental regulations. However, if more refining would enhance a producers profits why don't they build more refineries in countries that would welcome them?

Anyone remember 1973-73? The first oil embargo. Every politician and economist said"We must end our dependency on fossil fuel". Since then we have continued  to do nothing to achieve that goal. The next time you fill your gas tank, buy a bus/train/plane ticket, turn on your home a/c, think of your political leaders and their past/current stand on alternative sources of energy.

we have the mileage standards we have now because of the carter administration.