Democratic Senator [Stabenow] Calls For GOP To Alter Energy Policy

Yahoo! News ^ | May 10, 2008 | Will Lester, AP

[an amused spectator]

The public must pressure Republicans in the White House and Congress to change directions in the country's energy policies, which have pushed oil and gas prices to record highs, a Democratic lawmaker said Saturday.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow said the rising price of oil, fostered by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's close ties to the oil industry, is no longer just a burden.

"Now it is a crisis for every American family," the Michigan senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. She called the current energy situation "a crisis that doesn't just affect us at the pump, but also raises the prices of groceries, increases our home heating bills and squeezes small businesses trying to keep their heads above water." **snip**

"Republicans want more drilling, more consumption and more tax giveaways for the big oil companies," she said. "Democrats say that those are exactly the policies that got us into this mess to begin with."

[Atchafalaya]

This is from the Onion, right?

[Farmer Dean]

Maybe her husband prefers not to be “taken care of” by that cow.Why did he cheat in the first place?

[an amused spectator]

"In 2007, Exxon disclosed income taxes of $30 billion on revenue of $390 billion and net income of $40.6 billion, a new record. Including income, sales-based and all other taxes, Exxon paid $105.7 billion in 2007 taxes, or about 44% of its revenue. Averaged out from 2003-07, the company calculated that it paid about $13 billion a year in U.S. taxes."

http://ewastedisposal.blogspot.com/2008/03/big-oil.html

My buddy is cringing at the thought of tanking up his truck and equipment @ $4.50 a gallon for diesel. He pays enough to the government to keep the stuff on the road and "safe" from the eagle eyes of the nitpicking DOT revenooers.

Big Oil gets a chunk of change for its product - I'm not arguing that. The media spotlight never seems to fall on Big Thug Government, though.

Why is that? ;-)

[samtheman]

Really. Newt Gingrich. The happy-go-lucky court jester for the party that sold its soul to the devil.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Hmmmm...

Vladimir Putin has vowed to curb Russia’s growing inflation and cut oil industry taxes as he became the country’s new prime minister.

The nation’s former president, in a speech to parliament, said his administration wanted “single-digit inflation within a few years”.

He went on that it was part of a plan to make Russia one of the world’s economic leaders by 2020.

Investors have said inflation is Russia’s biggest economic problem, with price rises running at 14.3% in April on an annualised basis and growing fears of labour unrest.

Russia is in its 10th year of rapid growth and Mr Putin said it would displace Britain this year as the world’s sixth biggest economy based on purchasing power.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

We ought to label Debbie Stabenow and the rest of the No-Drill Caucus as oil profiteers. They make three or four times more than the oil companies on the same product, and they do nothing to get the $$$.

Actually, there’s another word for people who sponge off other people’s money without doing anything. They’re called slackers!

[TBP]

What hypocrites these liberals are. Tehy tell us higher gs prices would be the nomr (after all, tehy pay $5 per gallon in Europe, yu know) and then when the price shoots up due to their own actions, they whine, cry, and blame their opponents (whom they view as enemies and probably criminals), in order to increase their own power, which is the ONLY thing liberals care about.

[an amused spectator]

Forgot to add, that I guess you meant to compare apples to oranges.

Do you know what I find odd?

If you Google "Exxon "40.6 billion"", you get 1,860 results, 98% of which are carping about Exxon's "outrageous" profits.

If you Google "Exxon "105.7 billion"", you get seven results, none of which are about Exxon's 2007 taxes. [I tried other varieties, like "105.6 billion" and "105 billion", pretty much the same results. I think each of those had ONE article that showed Exxon's 2007 taxes.]

The media and the government (but I repeat myself...) are hiding that information from us. I finally found it right on Exxon's website:

                           2007                    2006
Income taxes  	 	 29,864   	  	 27,902
Sales-based taxes 	 31,728 		 30,381
All other taxes		 44,091 		 42,393
Total taxes 	        105,683                 100,676
=======================================================
Net Income               40,610   	  	 39,500

Apples and oranges, indeed.

The Republicrats and the Demopubs appear to be doing quite well for themselves - at our expense...

[an amused spectator]

So let me do some numbers crunching from my post #48:

Exxon made $1.1 billion dollars more in 2007 than it did in 2006 - while the government made $5 billion more from Exxon in 2007 than it did in 2006.

Nice work, if you can get it!

And the New York Times & Wikipedia will cover for you, to boot! SWEET!

[AmericanVictory]

She wants the oil companies to invest billions in “alternative energy.” More “a Manhattan Project” for windmills in your car nonsense. Why actually solve a problem when you can spend even more subsidizing it? Can anyone name a Senator in either party who has actually shown leadership on this issue? I must have missed it.

[Amendment10]

"The public must pressure Republicans in the White House and Congress to change directions in the country's energy policies, which have pushed oil and gas prices to record highs, a Democratic lawmaker said Saturday." --Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow

Okay, I give up.

Given that Dems got control of Congress in the 2006 elections, why are Dems now saying that the public must pressure Republican minority members of Congress to address oil and gas prices which have skyrocketed under a Democratic-controlled Congress? What's wrong with this picture?

But before anybody says anything, as far as I'm concerned, Republicans and Democrats alike have fallen flat on their faces with respect to leading the country to energy independence since the 1973 oil embargo. That is why I am keeping tabs on energy-related developments in the private sector. In fact, you may be interested in the following private sector happenings concerning energy.

There's now evidence that people might get as much, or more, bang per buck for their gas dollars with gas / ethanol mixtures.

Gas-competitive gas / ethanol mixtures

Also, I was surprised by the introduction of a machine for making home-made ethanol.

EFUEL100

But watch out for fines for violating biofuel regulations.

Fines for violating biofuel regulations

In the meanwhile, I'm keeping an eye on the following development in non-corn ethanol production.

Non-corn ethanol

Finally, on the down side of ethanol, I've heard that ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline fires. Can anybody shed some light on this?

[an amused spectator]

Ethanol fires harder to control than gasoline, require special foam

What's the news, across the nation? We have got, the information...

[an amused spectator]

So, continuing:

Let's say that "evil" Exxon is making 50 cents off a gallon of $3.50 a gallon gasoline (probably not - a lot less, but just for the sake of argument...).

That would mean that the government is making two and a half times that, or $1.25 a gallon.

So, when I filled up yesterday and bought 15 gallons of gasoline, that would mean that Exxon made $7.50, and the government made $18.75.

If you had a choice, who would you want to be - the guy with the ten spot, or the guy with the double sawbuck?

;-)

[org.whodat]

A whole lot different than your first statement isn't it. If Exxon and you do not want to pay taxes there is always the option of going out of business. And since it is so, so expensive for them the sooner the better.

[Hoodat]

The public must pressure Republicans in the White House and Congress to change directions in the country's energy policies

I was hoping that the voters of Michigan would change direction.

btw, what changes have the Democrats made in energy policy since taking control of Congress?

[an amused spectator]

If Exxon and you do not want to pay taxes there is always the option of going out of business. And since it is so, so expensive for them the sooner the better.

What's a goobermint lover like you doing on a limited government Constitutionalist board?

[an amused spectator]

A whole lot different than your first statement isn't it.

I'm sorry you didn't do well in math in school.

[org.whodat]

When all else fails throw insults. Then we can all see you IQ!

[an amused spectator]

I was hoping that the voters of Michigan would change direction.

First, her party leadership lied to Debbie about where the oil tax money was going.

Then, her husband lied to her about where he was last Saturday night.

Poor Debbie. Always the last to know...

[an amused spectator]

When all else fails throw insults.

Someone who wants the government to tax a legitimate business out of existence can rightly be termed a "goobermint lover"

A fact is insulting to you?

Interesting...