To: umgud
Neal Cavuta held Durbin's feet to the fire on this the other day and made him look like a fool. Durbin wouldn't answer Cavuto's question of the 9 cent a gallon profit vs the almost 50 cents in taxes.
6 posted on
04/30/2006 9:20:59 PM PDT by
jazusamo
(-- Married a WAC in '65 and I'm still reenlisting. :-)
To: jazusamo
Who's "Neal Cavuta"?
And why are we quoting and commenting on anything from the notorious "Left Angeles Times"?
It's even worse than the NYT in its perpetuation of Hate-America diatribe.
This whole business is a sham for criticising our government in a time of war and blaming our Administration for every ill under the sun from diaper rash to hang nails.
7 posted on
04/30/2006 9:58:11 PM PDT by
CBart95
To: jazusamo
Yeah Drubin's answer was "yeah but over alot it adds up... " and then went on to make quote total profit numbers, and 'retirement' packages.
Even though he was just bitching about the price needs to come down, and being confronted by "they can only possibly bring it down $0.08, you can by 8 times that amount with taxes".
Totally, and completely intellectually dishonest (or incompetent) ... (or both)
8 posted on
04/30/2006 9:58:34 PM PDT by
FreedomNeocon
(Better to take what they can throw at us now,rather than take what they promise to throw at us later)
To: jazusamo
"Cavuto's question of the 9 cent a gallon profit vs the almost 50 cents in taxes."Exxon's profit is ~7%. Even assuming 9% leaves that as 2.7 cents/gal vs. 50 cents tax.
29 posted on
04/30/2006 11:13:47 PM PDT by
spunkets
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson