Posted on 04/07/2008 4:34:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’m a Conservative Republican like you, Austin…”
The voice resonated through my headphones during the final minutes of my radio program, at AM 630 WMAL in Washington, D.C. The caller to the program - - we’ll call him “John” - - paused mid-sentence, and I sensed that there was a “big but” coming next.
“But,” he continued, “we’ve just gotta do something to reign in these excessive profits from the oil companies.” Oil industry executives had been questioned by members of Congress earlier in the day about why their profits, and prices, have been so high. The inquisition on Capitol Hill, which was quite a spectacle in itself, was still top-of-mind for many.
“What is excessive?” I asked.
“Oh, please, you don’t think they’re excessive?” he replied.
“I don’t understand what you’re saying. Commercially operated businesses are supposed to produce the greatest level of profit that they can; they are beholden to their stockholders to do that. What do you mean when you say ‘excessive?’”
“I mean over forty billion dollars in profits last year for the Exxon corporation is excessive.”
“Okay,” I said, “how much profit would be reasonable for Exxon to make?”
“Oh, I don’t know, that’s not my point” he replied. “I’m just saying that $3.29 a gallon for gasoline is outrageous, and we need to do something.”
“That’s a pricing issue” I said, “not a profits issue. Prices won’t decline until demand for gasoline decreases, or the supply of oil increases, or both. But forget the oil companies for a moment and let’s talk about you. How much profit did you make last year?”
“That doesn‘t concern you” he replied, sounding irritated.
“No, no, it concerns me a lot John. You’ve made it your concern to attempt to regulate the profits of oil companies - - ”
“Because gas prices are outrageous” he said interrupting me, “and they’re unfair.”
“Right, and you might have made more money last year than I did,” I replied, “and that would be unfair for me. We may very well need to regulate your excessive profits.”
“And you’re a pathetic hack for corporate America” he shouted at me. And then my conversation with John, and my evening radio show, ended.
It’s alarming to me how often I encounter people who are self-described “Conservatives” or “Conservative Republicans,” yet are quite comfortable with ideas and principles that are the antithesis of the “conservative,” “limited government” vision that has been the apex of the Republican Party for nearly all of my life.
More money taken away from private individuals in taxes. More governmental regulation of private affairs. More governmental intrusion into the lives of individual citizens. More of my “needs” being met by the government. At an increasing rate, ideas such as these are just fine for Republicans, so long as the expansion of government makes one feel better.
I understand John’s frustration with gasoline prices. But the U.S. Government that he seeks to harness so as to “reign in” oil company profits is the very same U.S. Government that has restricted or forbidden the development of many of our domestic oil supplies, and that requires oil companies to produce and sell both region-specific, and season-specific “blends” of gasoline, in varying parts of the country.
In short, the government that John believes can “save him” from the injustice of high gasoline prices has, by its own well-intended meddling, driven the price of gasoline upward.
And John is not alone in his questionable “conservatism.” During the Republican primary election process, the only presidential candidate to receive an endorsement from the ranks of social conservative leadership was a politician who raised taxes and opposed children’s educational choice initiatives while he was Governor of Arkansas - - Mike Huckabee.
Apparently “big government” politicians are just fine for some Republicans, as long as the candidate is sufficiently “pro family” and attends the right church.
In my home state of Arizona, the Republican-led legislature has ushered-in a whole new level of government “snooping” into the lives of private individuals, requiring all employers in the state to participate in the collection of personal background information of employees. The goal was to enable employers to verify the citizenship status of their workers, and to crack-down on the hiring of “illegals.”
Yet the collection of citizens’ personal background information - - facilitated through a federal government database - - forms the basis of a “national I.D. card,” an idea that Republicans found to be abhorrent only a few years ago.
No matter how uncertain or “unfair” the private sector economy may seem; no matter how comforting politicians’ promises of “free healthcare” may feel; no matter how “right” it may seem to vote for candidates who share common faith commitments; all Americans would do well to develop a healthy sense of skepticism about the government’s ability to “fix” our nation’s problems, and to reject politicians who promise such “fixes.”
And “Conservative Republicans” would do well to recall Ronald Reagan’s words of nearly 28 years ago: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”
I want to ‘reign in’ profits too. . .I want to ‘reign in’ the profits that government officials are making off each gallon of gas.
On a Sunday afternoon, I can go anywhere in town and see thousands of cars at malls, sporting events, et al. These are not 'essential' trips, but these same people will complain about the price of an 'essential'.
If the burden of fuel prices is so high, why are they still spending a hundred dollars or more to go to a game or a concert, and why are they buying more 'stuff' at the mall?
bump! Do you have the original file of these, where none are cut off? Or perhaps a link to it?
Yet another reason I’ll be staying home on election day.
Of all the republicans running for president, we’re stuck with the worst one as the republican nominee.
On the other hand, it is simple math to understand that if the vehicles your family drove got twice the mileage, you would pay half as much at the pump.
What effect would an additional 1-2 million BPD of US production have on an oil market that currently is sees demand at 86 million BPD and rising?
If the US currently has 4% of global proven reserves - approximately 21 billion barrels, how long can it continue to produce approximately 7.5 million BPD assuming consumption neither increases nor decreases? What is the time period if it pumps 2 million more bpd?
If you figure these things out, you might rethink your position. I will make a bet though - you won't bother. Keeping with the saying, "you can't reason a (wo)man out of something he wasn't reasoned into", you can keep believing your myths, but they are myths nevertheless.
I made a thread about it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1997877/posts
When I get the file hosted, I’ll put the link on this thread.
How do you know the type of vehicles we drive? Unfortunately, being in the construction business, tools, ladders, materials etc, don’t fit in a Celica. As for me, I drive a 6 cyl. vehicle. I don’t live in a city, for me to do the things that I have to do I must drive.
You’re exactly right but for some reason they don’t want to stand up for their country and country men. I think they are there to comfortably bask in their salaries and benefits while they reap the harvests of their power. We only count when they need our vote.
If you read what I wrote you would see that I made absolutely no assumptions about the vehicles you drove. I simply presented and easily understood mathematical formula that said, if you doubled your gas mileage, you would halve your gas bill.
I assume that you have done your own calculations as smart business person regarding the price of diesel vs. gasoline and the relative efficiency of each and decided wisely on your vehicle purchases based on that. Right?
Regardless, based on the information you gave me I would be willing to bet you could find a vehicle to replace each in your fleet that was 50% more efficient. Of course, you might not be able to get it in the US because the demand is too low, but perhaps eventually you will.
By the way, have you concerned yourself with the math of US production versus its proven reserves? The US has 21 billion barrels of oil. If it pumps 7.5 million per day, how long with 21 billion barrels last? Maybe you will rethink your drilling scenario once you pull out your calculator.
If John McCain can call himself a “conservative,” any fool with socialist ideas has every right to do the same IMO.
Quite a big effect probably. Prices are set at the margin and the addition of a couple million barrels to the market would have an impact far beyond its percentage of the total.
Using your numbers, the US could supply itself for a fantastic 7 years and 8 months. And that’s supposing we cut all imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuel... So the reality is that those 21 billion barrels would last quite some time. To the point where new technologies allow us to obtain oil from previously unreachable sources, which just keeps on happening.
Maybe you are of the mentality that if it only helps a little and doesn’t solve the entire problem, then it’s not worth making the effort.
Of course we also have the little problem of not having built a refinery since 1976.
Chances are that person wasn’t a Republican or a conservative at all. Liberals love to do that, pretend that they are conservative and then try to wheedle you on one of their pet issues.
Does anyone happen to know how much is a gallon of gas in Mexico? Because they nationalized their oil, right?
Doing something by Executive Order doesn't make it so forever. Anything that one president does by EO can be reversed by the next president on his first day in office.
You are a liar. You definitely assumed what type of vehicle they drive by telling them to get a smaller one. Thus you were assuming they drive big ones, and drive them because they want to not because they have to. Furthermore, your stupid, and it is stupid there is no other word for it, statement that all we will get if we drill is a few million barrels of oil just does not even deserve a reply.
We have billions of barrels in the ground that we are not allowed to get because of nonsensical enviro laws. On top of that you must add the refineries that we haven't built, which is one of our main problems, over the last 30 years.
There is no "long term" solution, at least not at this point in time. Drilling for new oil and building new refineries is the answer that will take care of the immediate need, and then it will take years to see the effect of this, and research can be ongoing to find your mythical long term solution. There is none available now.
If you people who believe that we are almost out of oil are so sure of this, then just lie back and wait, it will happen soon enough, according to you, and then you can push your "long term" solutions.
Meanwhile I will relegate you to the troll pile where you belong.
Your point would be valid if only one company were making obscene profits.
Stupid analogy, They are not loosing money on the gas, that’s my point. They are making a killing because we have no alternative but to pay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.