United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti ... o-regulate-oil-company-profits
Published: Jan 19, 2012
Author: Pete Kasperowicz
Post Date: 2012-01-20 19:20:36 by Wood_Chopper
Keywords: None
Views: 7044
Comments: 33
Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/19/12 10:20 AM ET 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. 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." 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. "Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives." Specifically, he said the money would be used to fund a tax credit on the purchase of fuel-efficient cars and set up a grant program for mass transit programs when oil-and-gas prices are high. The bill does not estimate the size of these grants or the amount of money that might be collected through the tax. 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.).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
Who is John Galt?
Another do-nothing federal government bureaucratic boon-doggle that shall be preoccupied with ten thousand oil industry lobbyists AND/OR shall determine what the HELL they feel like. This federal government has to be slashed not strengthened.
So how is making a couple of cents per gallon profit gouging the customer???? Especially when the total average federal, state and local taxes are right at .50 cents per gallon...... and they want to raise that..... Sounds more like the government is phucking you instead of the oil companies!!!!! But that's nothing new is it????
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Your post is arguing what a reasonable profit is, and THAT is not where the danger in this story lies. If the government can arbitrarily set what a "reasonable profit" is for the oil companies, why can't the government do it for your job, or ANY vocation?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Perhaps Wyatt's torch is not too far in the future.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
If the government can arbitrarily set what a "reasonable profit" is for the oil companies, why can't the government do it for your job, or ANY vocation? I recognize the danger of where the government is going with this..... They'll use it as an excuse to completely shut down the oil companies and promote their environmentalist wacko bullschitt agenda.... (Along with taking more of our freedoms away and make a tidy profit for themselves via crony capitalism)!!!!! I was only trying to point out the absurdity of the governments actions, and the absudity of those who believe the government is doing what is best for it's citizens....... (Did I just say some posters on LF are clueless????? Guess I need to go wash out my mouth with Gin)....... LOL.....
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
grin I'll join ya. Barkeep! A dirty martini if you please, extra olives.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Are you another reader of those Ayn Rand fables too? Too bad she couldn't practice what she preached.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
So, what do you think of this 'Reasonable Profits Board'? Do you support its creation?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Here is what decent countries do with Fascist politicians: You need not worry your pretty little head. As long as you have your GOP, oil and energy companies will still run the country and own the government. Just like PG and E owns and runs California. I do agree with your statement on crony capitalism though. As big oil spreads it's influence far and wide, and even expects the younger generations to die for it.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Do you support its creation? Nixon proved it couldn't be done.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I have no doubt that the leftists of the country will applaud this, just as they do every type of regulation. I've always been a bit confused about their trust in government bureaucracies to "do the right thing" when it comes to the federal government and regulations. Just read all of the articles of those on the left complaining (and rightfully so) about the corruptness of the SEC, the FDA, and the USDA, just to name a few. Why are they corrupt? As I see it, they are corrupt because every time a regulatory bureaucracy is set up an incestuous relationship soon develops between those being regulated and those doing the regulating. For example, low level financial executives from Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions slip between government regulatory agencies and their industry. Now it can be rightfully argued that you want people with experience in the industry to regulate the industry. However, we are talking about billions of dollars here. We are talking about industries that have spent decades bribing and extorting government officials into passing laws that reduce competition by favoring large corporations over local mom and pop businesses. These industries promise big money and career advancement to those government regulators if they play the game. So they bounce between the government and industry, working their way up the corporate/government ladder. We read about it all the time. Some regulatory bigwig is leaving the government to go work as a high-level executive for a company he was just regulating. Well it's not just happening at the bigwig level. If one were to look at the resume of that bigwig one would find that he/she has spent a career bouncing between the two, rising in rank each time and each time using the power of his/her position to help their industry while hurting competition, or in the case of the FDA and the USDA, the health of millions of people. I've been told on more than one occasion that this view is based on my own cynicism instead of reality. Maybe they are right, but if one pays attention to the regulations these agencies pass and the job histories of those in positions of power within the agencies it appears to me to be basic common sense. Please excuse any grammatical errors I may have made. I only have a short time to post and therefore did not do any editing.
You have to be kidding. Nixon was one of the biggest regulators of our time. And he was considered to be on the right at the time.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Despite their rhetoric, the Republican Party has been a party of big government since the 1950's.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view is that Nixon proved it CAN be done, and did it, while at the same time proving it didn't work. It can still be done. Should the govt have the power to be able to impose this type of thing in the first place?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
And most regulations historically were lobbied for by....gasp... lobbyists for various business entities. Of course anyone and everyone has lobbyists now.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
It can still be done. Should the govt have the power to be able to impose this type of thing in the first place? Okay... he proved it wouldn't last. Are you saying that government shouldn't represent the interests of the people?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I'm asking you, should the govt have the power to be able to impose this type of thing in the first place?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
You think that somehow makes my statement incorrect? Who do those lobbyist's work for? They work for those corporations I mentioned. Who are those lobbyist's discussing the regulations with? The regulatory agency that makes the decision. Nothing you said makes my statement incorrect. Your attempt at defending the incestuous relationship between corporations and regulatory bodies has failed. Try again.
Of course it should, if the people who elected their representatives want it. Why should businesses and corporations be the sacred exemptions to the will of the people?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Your attempt at defending the incestuous relationship between corporations and regulatory bodies has failed. Try again. I didn't say that. I merely expounded on territory most here are afraid to tread on.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Actually another source promoting various regulations on business are complaints from the public regarding unsound and unethical business practices such as putting the melamine that killed my dog in dog food a few years back.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
(mg)Of course it should, if the people who elected their representatives want it. Even though Nixon proved it didn't work?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Most voters have no idea it failed under Nixon but that was also before corps are considered to have first amendment rights.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
My apologies. I misunderstood. My view of lobbyists is that they are just one symptom that comes with a federal government that has too much power. It reminds me of something Neil said once about the difference between the corruption in Ecuador (where he lives) and the United States. Ecuador may be more corrupt as a whole but the corruption the individual feels is on a local level where the individual can control it better. For instance, a cop gives you a hard time and you give him bribe money and he goes away. Whereas the corruption in the United States is so far removed from you and I that we have no redress and no way to control it. Of course I am paraphrasing what he said. I'm also sure that there is corruption at all levels of government in Ecuador just as there is in the US. I found his point to be well taken though. if there was less power in the federal government and more power at the state and local levels it would be easier to control the negative effects of corporate lobbying. Not to say it would be easy, just easier. In my opinion, besides the natural power mongering that comes with being a politician and bureaucrat, the push towards more and more centralization has been championed by corporate America. Think about it - it's much easier and cheaper to bribe and extort one centralized power structure than it is to bribe and extort 50.different ones.
Would you agree then, that the govt should have the power to set what is a "Reasonable Profit" for you at your job, and take 100% of anything you make over that?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Access to a decent civil and criminal court system would have been a better solution to you and other dog owners than a regulation. You shouldn't have to be a millionaire to successfully sue a multinational conglomerate. That is another symptom of an overbearing corporate controlled central government. I hate to seem that I'm running away from an argument but I have to go now. I have a ton of studying to do. Have a good day. I will try and stop in later on.
(mg)Most voters have no idea it failed under Nixon but that was also before corps are considered to have first amendment rights. That doesn't answer the question. Do you believe the govt should have the power to impose this type of thing, even though Nixon proved it didn't work?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Do you believe the govt should have the power to impose this type of thing, even though Nixon proved it didn't work? The government has already proven it has the power and the people's representatives seem to want another go round, so what I think is immaterial. There is a big push to limit the power of corps this time around and money is a crucial component, so it might succeed until the pendulum swings the other way. Which is inevitable.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
By that time it would have gotten into people food and maybe killed some kids. But heh they would be just more fodder needed to sacrifice to the 'free market' gods. BTW I probably lost a young steer to it too, and a large rabbit grower in Canada was one of the first victims.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Well until something can efficiently takes it place we're stuck with it.... But you will still have the same problem with whatever takes it's place.... For every sucker that is born there is also a narcissist born....
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Red Herring.......
#2. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
#3. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
"Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers.
#4. To: CZ82 (#3)
#5. To: Happy Quanzaa (#1)
Who is John Galt?
#6. To: Wood_Chopper (#4)
Your post is arguing what a reasonable profit is, and THAT is not where the danger in this story lies.
#7. To: CZ82 (#6)
Guess I need to go wash out my mouth with Gin)....... LOL.....
#8. To: Happy Quanzaa (#1)
Who is John Galt?
#9. To: mininggold (#8)
#10. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#11. To: CZ82 (#6)
I recognize the danger of where the government is going with this..... They'll use it as an excuse to completely shut down the oil companies and promote their environmentalist wacko bullschitt agenda.... (Along with taking more of our freedoms away and make a tidy profit for themselves via crony capitalism)!!!!!
#12. To: Wood_Chopper (#9)
So, what do you think of this 'Reasonable Profits Board'?
#13. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
(Edited)
#14. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
I have no doubt that the leftists of the country will applaud this, just as they do every type of regulation. I've always been a bit confused about their trust in government bureaucracies to "do the right thing" when it comes to the federal government and regulations. Just read all of the articles of those on the left complaining (and rightfully so) about the corruptness of the SEC, the FDA, and the USDA, just to name a few.
#15. To: mininggold (#14)
#16. To: mininggold (#12)
Nixon proved it couldn't be done.
#17. To: Fibr Dog (#15)
Despite their rhetoric, the Republican Party has been a party of big government since the 1950's.
#18. To: Wood_Chopper (#16)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view is that Nixon proved it CAN be done, and did it, while at the same time proving it didn't work.
#19. To: mininggold (#18)
Are you saying that government shouldn't represent the interests of the people?
#20. To: mininggold (#17)
And most regulations historically were lobbied for by....gasp... lobbyists for various business entities. Of course anyone and everyone has lobbyists now.
#21. To: Wood_Chopper (#19)
I'm asking you, should the govt have the power to be able to impose this type of thing in the first place?
#22. To: Fibr Dog (#20)
You think that somehow makes my statement incorrect? Who do those lobbyist's work for? They work for those corporations I mentioned. Who are those lobbyist's discussing the regulations with? The regulatory agency that makes the decision. Nothing you said makes my statement incorrect.
#23. To: Fibr Dog (#22)
Your attempt at defending the incestuous relationship between corporations and regulatory bodies has failed. Try again.
#24. To: mininggold (#21)
(wc)I'm asking you, should the govt have the power to be able to impose this type of thing in the first place?
#25. To: Wood_Chopper (#24)
Even though Nixon proved it didn't work?
#26. To: mininggold (#22)
I didn't say that. I merely expounded on territory most here are afraid to tread on.
#27. To: mininggold (#25)
Most voters have no idea it failed under Nixon but that was also before corps are considered to have first amendment rights.
#28. To: mininggold (#23)
(Edited)
Actually another source promoting various regulations on business are complaints from the public regarding unsound and unethical business practices such as putting the melamine that killed my dog in dog food a few years back.
#29. To: mininggold (#25)
(wc)Even though Nixon proved it didn't work?
#30. To: Wood_Chopper (#29)
That doesn't answer the question.
#31. To: Fibr Dog (#28)
(Edited)
Access to a decent civil and criminal court system would have been a better solution to you and other dog owners than a regulation. You shouldn't have to be a millionaire to successfully sue a multinational conglomerate. That is another symptom of an overbearing corporate controlled central government.
#32. To: mininggold (#11)
I do agree with your statement on crony capitalism though. As big oil spreads it's influence far and wide, and even expects the younger generations to die for it.
#33. To: Wood_Chopper (#0)
'Reasonable Profits Board'
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]