Oil headed for $120/bbl. Obama wants to buy more from foerigners

[Mr. H.]

Regarding the OP, Obama's policies do favor importing oil rather than producing it within our own territorial borders.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, the higher the price of oil and gas the more money the gov collects in taxes on such products. Its MORE GOOD NEWS!!!

Umm the federal tax on gas is per gallon not percentage.
And if it costs more people will cut back some and use less, so less fuel taxes are collected.
The govt also uses lots of fuel in it's day to day operations so spending will increase just to stay the same.

Actually the higher oil costs the more in the road / highway maintenance costs and they suck in the same or less gas tax to pay for it.

Fuel tax needs to be a percentage of the price tax to try and keep balance for highway maintenance costs.

I believe he was speaking of tax on revenue as reported by corporations, did you think that the only tax was at the pump, no corporate tax, no income tax for the employees, no tax on the stocks, no social security tax collected, etc., etc..

You said on such products.

"Yes, the higher the price of oil and gas the more money the gov collects in taxes on such products. Its MORE GOOD NEWS!!!"

 

[uscitizen]

Regarding the OP, Obama's policies do favor importing oil rather than producing it within our own territorial borders.

As long as it is feasable I agree with that. Lets use theirs up first and then fall back on ours later when it gets more expensive.

 

[mdn2000]

tff.....

when oil goes up under a bush presidency = bad

when oil goes up under an obama presidency = good

no one said that.... who here said that? ... cons have nothing in their arsenal but personal attack and straw man argument.

it doesn't matter what president.... oil price is going up because there's not enough of it to satisfy demand.

Is not using the term, "Con" a personal attack, a "Con" is a criminal, short for convict. A straw man argument? Unlike your post I am quoting with is full of facts.

I am actually wondering where you posted any fact or where you posted without a personal attack.

The Marxist always try to divide the public, class warfare, name calling, thats all they got.

 

[Luissa]

More profits, more production. 85% of the drilling and exploration is done in this country by independently owned companies who reinvest all their profits and more right back into the business.

Still... on the horizon- tens of billions of dollars in penalties directed at those very same companies by the Obama admin.

But remember, when oil hit $140/bbl it soon tanked at $30 before bouncing back to where it is today.

And why are they being charged penalties?

 

[Trajan]

I think this may have something to do with it..........

http://www.nwherald.com/2010/12/01/citing-bp-obama-rejects-oil-drilling/a5oa15d/

I can say that gas has been creeping up here, yesterday $3.35 for a gallon of regular.

 

[Mr. H.]

Regarding the OP, Obama's policies do favor importing oil rather than producing it within our own territorial borders.

As long as it is feasable I agree with that. Lets use theirs up first and then fall back on ours later when it gets more expensive.

I've been hearing that line of reasoning for 30 years now. Over half our trade deficit is made up of crude imports so more domestic production means less of our dollars shipped overseas. Exploration projects sometimes take years to develop before production is brought online. I say drill here/drill now.

More profits, more production. 85% of the drilling and exploration is done in this country by independently owned companies who reinvest all their profits and more right back into the business.

Still... on the horizon- tens of billions of dollars in penalties directed at those very same companies by the Obama admin.

But remember, when oil hit $140/bbl it soon tanked at $30 before bouncing back to where it is today.

And why are they being charged penalties?

Here's a list of long-standing tax provisions that Obama wants to see stripped from the oil and natural gas industries:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Many of these have been a part of the tax code for decades and are also used by other industries, but the Democrats have to fund their green initiatives and see hydrocarbons as an easy target. The result would be a loss of domestic production and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

 

[Samson]

Many of these have been a part of the tax code for decades and are also used by other industries, but the Democrats have to fund their green initiatives and see hydrocarbons as an easy target. The result would be a loss of domestic production and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

heh..."Democrat's Green Initiatives" amount to tax breaks for companies developing Green NRG:

ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips

So on the one hand tree-huggers are duped, and the Seirra Club continues to donate to the DNC; while on the other hand "Evul Big Oil" becomes the biggest developer of alternative resources.

 

[uscitizen]

We MUST reduce our dependence on oil (domestic or foreign) or we are doomed for certain.

 

[Mr. H.]

Another potential nail in the coffin:

National monument status urged for Arctic refuge - Yahoo! News

 

[uscitizen]

How is that Alaska natural gas pipeline coming along?

 

[Luissa]

Regarding the OP, Obama's policies do favor importing oil rather than producing it within our own territorial borders.

As long as it is feasable I agree with that. Lets use theirs up first and then fall back on ours later when it gets more expensive.

I've been hearing that line of reasoning for 30 years now. Over half our trade deficit is made up of crude imports so more domestic production means less of our dollars shipped overseas. Exploration projects sometimes take years to develop before production is brought online. I say drill here/drill now.

More profits, more production. 85% of the drilling and exploration is done in this country by independently owned companies who reinvest all their profits and more right back into the business.

Still... on the horizon- tens of billions of dollars in penalties directed at those very same companies by the Obama admin.

But remember, when oil hit $140/bbl it soon tanked at $30 before bouncing back to where it is today.

And why are they being charged penalties?

Here's a list of long-standing tax provisions that Obama wants to see stripped from the oil and natural gas industries:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Many of these have been a part of the tax code for decades and are also used by other industries, but the Democrats have to fund their green initiatives and see hydrocarbons as an easy target. The result would be a loss of domestic production and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Why are they being charged penalties? I didn't ask about tax codes.
It also pretty simple, they follow the rules and guidelines they don't have to pay. I also don't feel bad for oil companies especially with many have made record profits while we are in a recession.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The last time you squaked "Peak...is....here..." was in July 2008 when oil was $145/bbl.

Loser.

Nevermind that I wasn't here then, but I would have been correct then as well.... Short term spikes are not long term price increase, you arrogant unrivaled ass. We've been on peak since 2004.... Light crude production has flatlined since then.

When you're done running your mouth, look up the data for yourself. And grow up.

 

[Samson]

We MUST reduce our dependence on oil (domestic or foreign) or we are doomed for certain.

You need to begin building a nuclear power plant in your backyard.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Demand?

Am I reading the same headlines as you?

Apparently not.

Europe is ready to have another collapse of the PIIGS, the US isn't adding any jobs at all and is in fact LOSING them, and when you factor in the the US consumes more than twice the amount of oil as the next country on the list, how do you figure there's more demand?

Gosh, I dunno.... because the International Energy Agency SAYS so? (among many other energy monitoring agencies and entities).

Heard of countries like China and India, right?

 

[Mr. H.]

Why are they being charged penalties? I didn't ask about tax codes.
It also pretty simple, they follow the rules and guidelines they don't have to pay. I also don't feel bad for oil companies especially with many have made record profits while we are in a recession.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "penalties". Let's say the industry is being singled out and "penalized" for a) being successful and b) producing a commodity that has been demonized by the green movement.

Every barrel of oil produced here is one less imported. Energy/jobs/security. Not to mention its contribution to the GDP and the royalties/tax revenues that flow governments- national, state, and local.

 

[Yurt]

tff.....

when oil goes up under a bush presidency = bad

when oil goes up under an obama presidency = good

no one said that.... who here said that? ... cons have nothing in their arsenal but personal attack and straw man argument.

it doesn't matter what president.... oil price is going up because there's not enough of it to satisfy demand.

are you serious? were you living under a rock during that time? plenty of people on this board and on off the board blamed bush for the high gas prices...

Dems Blame Bush For High Oil Prices

(AP) President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to aggressively boost the federal emergency oil stockpile contributed to a dramatic decline in commercial oil stocks and caused energy prices to soar, says a study by Senate Democrats.

Dems Blame Bush For High Oil Prices - CBS News

if you want more....google is your friend....but you have to come out from under that rock....

 

[mdn2000]

tff.....

when oil goes up under a bush presidency = bad

when oil goes up under an obama presidency = good

no one said that.... who here said that? ... cons have nothing in their arsenal but personal attack and straw man argument.

it doesn't matter what president.... oil price is going up because there's not enough of it to satisfy demand.

Speaking of nothing in your arsenal I just searched for a thread started by Jiggs with all these great facts and sources and I cannot find one.

I hope Jiggs steps up to my challenge, which I must modify, start a thread with your great facts, studies, and microsoft paint graphs.

I will relish, "pushing your face into the facts".

Step up Jiggs, where is your thread.

 

[Samson]

The last time you squaked "Peak...is....here..." was in July 2008 when oil was $145/bbl.

Loser.

Nevermind that I wasn't here then, but I would have been correct then as well.... Short term spikes are not long term price increase, you arrogant unrivaled ass. We've been on peak since 2004.... Light crude production has flatlined since then.

When you're done running your mouth, look up the data for yourself. And grow up.

You "weren't here then?" Were you on another planet? Planet of the Paranoid?

Your "Peak" seems to be a moving target for the past 40 years:

"peak...is...here.....but....but..... not when its only a short term spike!"

You Clown.

 

[Samson]

tff.....

when oil goes up under a bush presidency = bad

when oil goes up under an obama presidency = good

no one said that.... who here said that? ... cons have nothing in their arsenal but personal attack and straw man argument.

it doesn't matter what president.... oil price is going up because there's not enough of it to satisfy demand.

Speaking of nothing in your arsenal I just searched for a thread started by Jiggs with all these great facts and sources and I cannot find one.

I hope Jiggs steps up to my challenge, which I must modify, start a thread with your great facts, studies, and microsoft paint graphs.

I will relish, "pushing your face into the facts".

Step up Jiggs, where is your thread.

Does the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable resources really need confirmation?

No.

Does the simple Economics of Supply and Demand really need confirmation?

No.

Where Jiggs and his fellow "Peak Oil" Chicken Littles begin to be amusing is when they begin to predict the future, for which they have no realistic POV, and for which there is no data: However, since drama keeps us entertained, they paint as dark a picture as possible.