PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Congress set to quadruple tax on oil


petegz28
05-24-2010, 10:37 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.
The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

The tax increase is part of a larger bill that has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day. The key provisions are a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year, and expanded unemployment benefits, including subsidies for health insurance, through the end of the year.

The House could vote on the bill as early as Tuesday. Senate leaders hope to complete work on it before Congress goes on a weeklong break next week.

Lawmakers want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills. At least 6 million gallons of crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig exploded April 20 off the Louisiana coast.

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have said they expect BP to foot the bill for the cleanup.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

BP executives told Congress last week they would pay "all legitimate claims" for damages. But the government needs upfront money to respond to spills, as well as money to pay for cleanups when the responsible party is unable to pay, or is unknown. Money spent from the fund can later be recovered from the company responsible for the spill.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has about $1.5 billion available. Under current law, only $1 billion can be spent from the fund on a single incident. The bill would increase the spending limit to $5 billion.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the tax increase was hastily put together, without adequate study, to help pay for an unrelated bill. The tax increase was unveiled Thursday, without any congressional hearings to study its impact.

Even with the tax increases, the bill is projected to add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit.

"I have seen no analysis on how this would impact energy security, how this would impact domestic production, how this would impact the overall economics in the country," said Christopher Guith, vice president of the chamber's energy institute. "There hasn't been any sort of deliberation on this."

The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a position on the tax increase, though a spokeswoman said Congress should study the ramifications before acting.

"We understand we need to have an insurance policy in order to cover people in the event of a spill," said the spokeswoman, Cathy Landry. "At the same time we need to have a vital oil and gas industry."

The bill does not address a federal law that caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill last week that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but they were blocked by Republicans.

The oil industry says such a high cap would make it difficult, if not impossible, to insure oil rigs.

BP said Monday its costs for responding to the spill had grown to about $760 million.

___

The bill is H.R. 4213

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1&show_article=1

Ebolapox
05-24-2010, 10:39 PM
aaaaaand gas goes up to four bucks a gallon by summer time.

petegz28
05-24-2010, 10:39 PM
"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.


Sure, oil companies will eat the increased tax and not pass it onto the consumer.

Yeah, right!

Chief Henry
05-25-2010, 06:02 AM
Its what dems ultimatley want.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 06:06 AM
No crisis should be allowed to go away without increasing a tax or making a new governmental agency.

InChiefsHell
05-25-2010, 06:20 AM
Typical harumphing from the dicks in Congress. No crisis should go to waste. I heard yesterday that New Orleans hotels are FLOODED with lawyers...gee, I wonder what kind of impact that will have?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 06:23 AM
Typical harumphing from the dicks in Congress. No crisis should go to waste. I heard yesterday that New Orleans hotels are FLOODED with lawyers...gee, I wonder what kind of impact that will have?

The good news in that is that those lawyers are not scattered out in search of victims elsewhere.

headsnap
05-25-2010, 06:34 AM
I heard yesterday that New Orleans hotels are FLOODED with lawyers...

there is a Katrina joke in there somewhere....:)

BigRedChief
05-25-2010, 06:56 AM
WTF? I thought the oil companies were suppose to pay the clean up costs for oil spills? Why do we need some kind of government fund?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 07:00 AM
WTF? I thought the oil companies were suppose to pay the clean up costs for oil spills? Why do we need some kind of government fund?

Apply that to Local schools...why does the federal government have such involvement in something that was never intended to be federalized?

Apply it to deadbeats who don't pay their mortgages.

Apply it to Student loans.

Apply it to Owning a car manufacturer.

This list is endless.

You vote for big government, you get big government.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 07:19 AM
WTF? I thought the oil companies were suppose to pay the clean up costs for oil spills? Why do we need some kind of government fund?

Because the company's response is being deemed inadequate. The media is screaming for the government to "do something". The government in putting in place a mechanism to have the funds to "do something". The cost of clean up will be passed on to consumers at the pump regardless of whether the oil companies are proactive in their cleanup efforts or if the government cleans it up via the tax money. In either case, the environmental impact of oil (or any energy source) is a real cost of energy source. Someone has to pay it. In the present scenario it is going to be the tourist-oriented businesses along the gulf coast, other property owners, fishermen, and probably a bunch of other people I'm leaving out. In reality, $11B won't even cover the damage of this disaster alone. Doesn't it seem fairer for the consumers of cheap energy (the people who benefit from it the most) to pay for the clean up?

A market economy can't even work properly if the true cost of an item (such as energy) doesn't reflect it's true cost (in terms of health impact, environmental impact, etc).

petegz28
05-25-2010, 07:34 AM
Because the company's response is being deemed inadequate. The media is screaming for the government to "do something". The government in putting in place a mechanism to have the funds to "do something". The cost of clean up will be passed on to consumers at the pump regardless of whether the oil companies are proactive in their cleanup efforts or if the government cleans it up via the tax money. In either case, the environmental impact of oil (or any energy source) is a real cost of energy source. Someone has to pay it. In the present scenario it is going to be the tourist-oriented businesses along the gulf coast, other property owners, fishermen, and probably a bunch of other people I'm leaving out. In reality, $11B won't even cover the damage of this disaster alone. Doesn't it seem fairer for the consumers of cheap energy (the people who benefit from it the most) to pay for the clean up?

A market economy can't even work properly if the true cost of an item (such as energy) doesn't reflect it's true cost (in terms of health impact, environmental impact, etc).

Your argument would be vaild if the tax went away after the cleanup was done.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 07:42 AM
Your argument would be vaild if the tax went away after the cleanup was done.

There will be another cleanup and another one after that. Think about it, the tax is less than a penny per gallon of crude. I am willing to bet that the real environmental costs (which have a way of translating into economic impact and human health effects) of getting crude out of the ground and to the refinery are far in excess of a penny per gallon of crude. The oil companies don't end up paying the cost (see Exxon Valdez where Exxon paid a tiny fraction of the cost and raw crude is still on the beaches and the economic impact is lasting). Do you have a better mechanism?

Market economics doesn't address these kinds of situations because redress for property damages is handled by an imperfect court system. Having more property (wealth) allows you to have a huge advantage in court where you can violate the rights of others with impunity.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 07:51 AM
I have a pretty off the wall question:

Does anyone know how Amtrak trains are powered? Google is not being my friend in finding an answer.

They are powered mostly by diesel-electric locomotives.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive



Diesel-electric


General Motors FT demonstrator set #103, the locomotive that sold American railroads on the freight-hauling Diesel-electric locomotive.


Soviet 2TE10U locomotive
For locomotives powered by both external electricity and diesel fuel, see electro-diesel below. For locomotives powered by a combination of diesel or fuel cells and batteries or ultracapacitors, see hybrid locomotive.
In a Diesel-electric locomotive the Diesel engine drives an electrical generator whose output provides power to the traction motors. There is no mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels. The important components of Diesel-electric propulsion are the Diesel engine (also known as the prime mover), the main generator, traction motors, and a control system consisting of the engine governor as well as electrical or electronic components used to control or modify the electrical supply to the traction motors, including switchgear, rectifiers, and other components. In the most elementary case, the generator may be directly connected to the motors with only very simple switchgear.
Originally, the traction motors and generator were DC machines. Following the development of high-capacity silicon rectifiers in the 1960s, the DC generator was replaced by an alternator using a diode bridge to convert its output to DC. This advance greatly improved locomotive reliability and decreased generator maintenance costs by elimination of the commutator and brushes in the generator. Elimination of the brushes and commutator, in turn, disposed of the possibility of a particularly destructive type of event referred to as flashover, which could result in immediate generator failure and, in some cases, start an engine room fire.
More recently, the development of high-power variable-frequency/variable-voltage (VVVF) drives, or "traction inverters," has allowed the use of polyphase AC traction motors, thus also eliminating the motor commutator and brushes. The result is a more efficient and reliable drive that requires relatively little maintenance and is better able to cope with overload conditions that often destroyed the older types of motors.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 08:15 AM
There will be another cleanup and another one after that. Think about it, the tax is less than a penny per gallon of crude. I am willing to bet that the real environmental costs (which have a way of translating into economic impact and human health effects) of getting crude out of the ground and to the refinery are far in excess of a penny per gallon of crude. The oil companies don't end up paying the cost (see Exxon Valdez where Exxon paid a tiny fraction of the cost and raw crude is still on the beaches and the economic impact is lasting). Do you have a better mechanism?

Market economics doesn't address these kinds of situations because redress for property damages is handled by an imperfect court system. Having more property (wealth) allows you to have a huge advantage in court where you can violate the rights of others with impunity.

taxing isn't going to prevent spills

Donger
05-25-2010, 08:24 AM
WTF? I thought the oil companies were suppose to pay the clean up costs for oil spills? Why do we need some kind of government fund?

BP is paying for it.

This fund has been around for years, BTW, and the oil companies have been "contributing" to it since inception. Looks like the Democrats just want to increase the amount. That's all.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 08:28 AM
taxing isn't going to prevent spills

I realize that. This is a mechanism for paying for the clean up of the spills that do happen. The court system is failing to achieve that now.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 08:37 AM
I realize that. This is a mechanism for paying for the clean up of the spills that do happen. The court system is failing to achieve that now.

BS. The is nothing more than a broke government using this crisis to raise taxes.

Chief Henry
05-25-2010, 08:50 AM
BS. The is nothing more than a broke government using this crisis to raise taxes.

Bingo

Chief Faithful
05-25-2010, 09:17 AM
I realize that. This is a mechanism for paying for the clean up of the spills that do happen. The court system is failing to achieve that now.

I choose to believe you are not that unaware of how ways and means works within government so I have to believe this is a blind attempt to defend the Democrat party. Given that belief there is nothing I can say that would help you see how moronic a statement you just made.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 09:31 AM
I choose to believe you are not that unaware of how ways and means works within government so I have to believe this is a blind attempt to defend the Democrat party.

Nah, gitout. Ya think?

LOL

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 09:40 AM
I thought BP was cleaning it up on their own expense?

Having the govt tax for such cleanups leads to moral hazard making more spills likely.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 09:42 AM
BS. The is nothing more than a broke government using this crisis to raise taxes.

Spot on! Rep!

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 09:43 AM
I realize that. This is a mechanism for paying for the clean up of the spills that do happen. The court system is failing to achieve that now.
I can't believe you claimed to be a conservative on this very board.
You are NO conservative.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 09:59 AM
I can't believe you claimed to be a conservative on this very board.
You are NO conservative.

I also said I had a low tolerance for injustice.

I don't believe in preserving systems at the expense of people suffering, especially when other people benefit from the suffering. If you want to preserve your system, you better make it work for people. This I see as the key failing of the current version of conservatism.

I think we have the capacity, but not the will, to do better.

mikey23545
05-25-2010, 10:03 AM
Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.



Huh?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:03 AM
I also said I had a low tolerance for injustice.

I don't believe in preserving systems at the expense of people suffering, especially when other people benefit from the suffering. If you want to preserve your system, you better make it work for people. This I see as the key failing of the current version of conservatism.

I think we have the capacity, but not the will, to do better.

In other words, you have justified being a statist and advocate for BIG govt and to hell with limited govt and our Constitution.*

Got it! :thumb:



* You certainly are not preserving those things at all. First, you have to know what they are though.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 10:07 AM
I don't believe in preserving systems at the expense of people suffering, especially when other people benefit from the suffering. If you want to preserve your system, you better make it work for people.

We've had a democrat congress since 2006 and since B.O. took over the left has had total control of the "system"---

Care to try and make a case how people are not suffering worse since 2006?

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:08 AM
In other words, you have justified being a statist and advocate for BIG govt and to hell with limited govt and our Constitution.*

Got it! :thumb:



* You certainly are not preserving those things at all. First, you have to know what they are though.

Are you saying that limited government and the Constitution are incapable of dealing with injustice or are you saying that there is no injustice?

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:10 AM
We've had a democrat congress since 2006 and since B.O. took over the left has had total control of the "system"---

Care to try and make a case how people are not suffering worse since 2006?

Democrats suck. I'm not going to stick up for them. So do Republicans.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:12 AM
Are you saying that limited government and the Constitution are incapable of dealing with injustice or are you saying that there is no injustice?

I am saying they're capable of handling injustice without forgetting that man in general can't be completely trusted with it.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:14 AM
I am saying they're capable of handling injustice without forgetting that man in general can't be completely trusted with it.

I can't parse that sentence. What is "it"?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:18 AM
I can't parse that sentence. What is "it"?

justice

Chief Faithful
05-25-2010, 10:23 AM
I thought BP was cleaning it up on their own expense?

Having the govt tax for such cleanups leads to moral hazard making more spills likely.

Are you saying the government wants to increase taxes to better respond to an oil spill they are choosing to not respond to? I wish I could collect money to improve a capability I never plan to use only to redirect the money to my own interests.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:28 AM
justice

So you are basically saying that our current system gives too much power to individual humans to allow their to be justice. Yet you want to preserve that system as a conservative. So you are willing to live with injustice. Furthermore, you are willing for injustice to be unequally distributed. By this I mean that individuals with more property will suffer less injustice (violation of their rights) than people with less property, because people with more property can have much more influence on the court system, elections, and the legislative process. And you are saying that you are okay with that, that this is the best we can do.

Does that summarize your point of view correctly?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:29 AM
No it doesn't sum it up. I essentially said our system provides for justice. Just that man cannot always be relied on to deliver it.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:30 AM
Are you saying the government wants to increase taxes to better respond to an oil spill they are choosing to not respond to? I wish I could collect money to improve a capability I never plan to use only to redirect the money to my own interests.

Oh, they're definitely lying SOBs. And tyrants.

Chief Faithful
05-25-2010, 10:30 AM
Democrats suck. I'm not going to stick up for them. So do Republicans.

You just presented the Democrats only defense, "the Republicans sucked first."

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 10:31 AM
So you are basically saying that our current system gives too much power to individual humans to allow their to be justice. Yet you want to preserve that system as a conservative. So you are willing to live with injustice. Furthermore, you are willing for injustice to be unequally distributed. By this I mean that individuals with more property will suffer less injustice (violation of their rights) than people with less property, because people with more property can have much more influence on the court system, elections, and the legislative process. And you are saying that you are okay with that, that this is the best we can do.



cdcox, I take it you are not "willing to live with injustice". OK, what do you propose to do about it? Describe this utopia where browncoats can create a system where there is no "injustice".

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:31 AM
No it doesn't sum it up. I essentially said our system provides for justice. Just that man cannot always be relied on to deliver it.

Cannot the system be improved, then, to counteract potential for abuses by humans?

Remember, the system came from humans, so it in and of itself it is flawed.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 10:32 AM
:clap:

No it doesn't sum it up. I essentially said our system provides for justice. Just that man cannot always be relied on to deliver it.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:35 AM
Cannot the system be improved, then, to counteract potential for abuses by humans?

Remember, the system came from humans, so it in and of itself it is flawed.

Not with your stance for improving it in this thread. I said why earlier. It creates greater moral hazard. I'd add, since you don't appear to know that MH means, that it buffers those who'd spill from responsibility. I'd rather see limited liability for a corporation be reformed if that's your aim.

This is nothing more than using a fiasco to suppress the people in order to collect more revenue. Judging from the past track of our politicians they rarely do what they claim with such money. Our govt is lawless and corrupt more than ever today.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 10:44 AM
cdcox, I take it you are not "willing to live with injustice". OK, what do you propose to do about it? Describe this utopia where browncoats can create a system where there is no "injustice".

Let's at least create a system with the injustice is more uniformly distributed. First you would have a screening trial to weed out the totally frivolous cases. Anyone bringing a frivolous case cannot bring another case before the court for 10 years. Once the case is decided to be non-frivolous, the attorneys for both sides prepare their preferred resolution of the case. All damages have to be documented. No punitive damages. The two attorneys negotiate until the positions are as close as possible to resolution. Then you flip a coin to choose between the two proposed resolutions.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Let's at least create a system with the injustice is more uniformly distributed. First you would have a screening trial to weed out the totally frivolous cases. Anyone bringing a frivolous case cannot bring another case before the court for 10 years. Once the case is decided to be non-frivolous, the attorneys for both sides prepare their preferred resolution of the case. All damages have to be documented. No punitive damages. The two attorneys negotiate until the positions are as close as possible to resolution. Then you flip a coin to choose between the two proposed resolutions.

Is this before the Apple Bonkers attack, or after the Blue Meanies form their flanks?

RJ
05-25-2010, 10:50 AM
Drill baby drill?

Most of us wanted to see more drilling in the gulf back when gas was hitting $4 a gallon. Now our gas prices will go up because we got more drilling and BP screwed up.

One way or another, I guess we gots to pay.

Hydrae
05-25-2010, 11:39 AM
Ok, so how many of those replying about this being a new tax and that it is indeed going to cost taxpayers missed this line:

But the government needs upfront money to respond to spills, as well as money to pay for cleanups when the responsible party is unable to pay, or is unknown. Money spent from the fund can later be recovered from the company responsible for the spill.

Now if the argument is that you don't believe the money spent out of the fund will be recovered from the offending company, that is a different discussion.

RJ
05-25-2010, 11:52 AM
Ok, so how many of those replying about this being a new tax and that it is indeed going to cost taxpayers missed this line:



Now if the argument is that you don't believe the money spent out of the fund will be recovered from the offending company, that is a different discussion.


How about I missed that line and I don't believe it.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 12:08 PM
Ok, so how many of those replying about this being a new tax and that it is indeed going to cost taxpayers missed this line:



Now if the argument is that you don't believe the money spent out of the fund will be recovered from the offending company, that is a different discussion.

And you believe that shit? We print more money for more bullshit and suddenly we need the money "up front"? ROFL

FishingRod
05-25-2010, 12:15 PM
In the words of the President. "You would think the people would be saying thank you." Or was that thank you sir may I have another?

Hydrae
05-25-2010, 12:17 PM
And you believe that shit? We print more money for more bullshit and suddenly we need the money "up front"? ROFL

Where do you propose they get the money from? Thin air like the rest of it or maybe with some form of accounting?

I trust the government as far as I can throw it but the knee jerk reactions here did not even take the time and effort to read it thoroughly enough to be able to discuss a very short article. We hammer points of minutia every day on this board but you have to actually read critically to be able to speak to something knowledgably. This did not happen in this thread. That was my entire point.

FishingRod
05-25-2010, 12:26 PM
Ok, so how many of those replying about this being a new tax and that it is indeed going to cost taxpayers missed this line:



Now if the argument is that you don't believe the money spent out of the fund will be recovered from the offending company, that is a different discussion.

Every once in a great while the Government spends tax monies on things other than that which it was originally supposed to.

RJ
05-25-2010, 12:36 PM
Where do you propose they get the money from? Thin air like the rest of it or maybe with some form of accounting?

I trust the government as far as I can throw it but the knee jerk reactions here did not even take the time and effort to read it thoroughly enough to be able to discuss a very short article. We hammer points of minutia every day on this board but you have to actually read critically to be able to speak to something knowledgably. This did not happen in this thread. That was my entire point.


Knee Jerk Reactions are the only reason I read this forum.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 12:38 PM
Where do you propose they get the money from? Thin air like the rest of it or maybe with some form of accounting?

I trust the government as far as I can throw it but the knee jerk reactions here did not even take the time and effort to read it thoroughly enough to be able to discuss a very short article. We hammer points of minutia every day on this board but you have to actually read critically to be able to speak to something knowledgably. This did not happen in this thread. That was my entire point.

Here is an idea. Change the fucking law so the liable company can be sued for the entire cost of the cleanup plus penalty.

This shit, we are going to quadruple your tax on oil for future problems is about as sound as me thinking I can fly.

The tax money will go for other bullshit than what it is supposed too and you know this. Just like our SS $'s. This is nothing more than exploiting a crisis to increase taxes.

And talk about knee-jerk! That is how this whole tax proposal is being put together.

go bowe
05-25-2010, 02:40 PM
We've had a democrat congress since 2006 and since B.O. took over the left has had total control of the "system"---

Care to try and make a case how people are not suffering worse since 2006?total control?

without 60 votes, the republicans can/have filibustered every bill they don't like (which is just about every bill apparently)...

i know this is true b/c keith told me so...

Brock
05-25-2010, 03:33 PM
Ok, so how many of those replying about this being a new tax and that it is indeed going to cost taxpayers missed this line:



Now if the argument is that you don't believe the money spent out of the fund will be recovered from the offending company, that is a different discussion.

It's a business cost which can be figured and amortized into the cost of their product. Now who's going to ultimately pay?

DJ's left nut
05-25-2010, 03:42 PM
"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.


Please, God.

Tell me he's not this stupid.

DJ's left nut
05-25-2010, 03:45 PM
Where do you propose they get the money from? Thin air like the rest of it or maybe with some form of accounting?

I trust the government as far as I can throw it but the knee jerk reactions here did not even take the time and effort to read it thoroughly enough to be able to discuss a very short article. We hammer points of minutia every day on this board but you have to actually read critically to be able to speak to something knowledgably. This did not happen in this thread. That was my entire point.

I fail to see how anything you've 'pointed out' here will keep these taxes from being passed on from a corporation to the public.

For those that are a little slow: Corporations don't pay taxes. They've never paid taxes.

People pay taxes through corporations. Every single cent of it is passed down to customers.

It's why the true amount of your paycheck that goes to the government in some fashion is far nearer 66% than whatever your marginal tax rate is.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 03:55 PM
Here is an idea. Change the ****ing law so the liable company can be sued for the entire cost of the cleanup plus penalty.

This shit, we are going to quadruple your tax on oil for future problems is about as sound as me thinking I can fly.

The tax money will go for other bullshit than what it is supposed too and you know this. Just like our SS $'s. This is nothing more than exploiting a crisis to increase taxes.

And talk about knee-jerk! That is how this whole tax proposal is being put together.

The problem is that BP has a lot of money. That is not a problem in and of itself. But they use that money to influence how laws are made through congress, they use that money to influence how laws are enforced in the executive branch through campaign contributions, and they use that money to win favorable judgments in court through expensive lawyers and endless appeals. They influence all three phases of government at levels that people that don't have that kind of money do not have access to.

I think the people who are most against these kinds of taxes have to be strong proponents of other methods of redress. It will be very difficult to change the law, because BP and the other oil companies will use all of their money to fight against it. Similar problems exist in every industry. This is not a problem unique to Republicans or Democrats. It is a problem with the way our political system currently works. I don't see the libertarian position offering a solution because it will only enhance the effect of $ in politics.

KC Dan
05-25-2010, 03:56 PM
Please, God.

Tell me he's not this stupid.I'm far from being God but I feel confident in his reply. "He is that stupid. He'll be out of office soon" - God

petegz28
05-25-2010, 04:33 PM
The problem is that BP has a lot of money. That is not a problem in and of itself. But they use that money to influence how laws are made through congress, they use that money to influence how laws are enforced in the executive branch through campaign contributions, and they use that money to win favorable judgments in court through expensive lawyers and endless appeals. They influence all three phases of government at levels that people that don't have that kind of money do not have access to.

I think the people who are most against these kinds of taxes have to be strong proponents of other methods of redress. It will be very difficult to change the law, because BP and the other oil companies will use all of their money to fight against it. Similar problems exist in every industry. This is not a problem unique to Republicans or Democrats. It is a problem with the way our political system currently works. I don't see the libertarian position offering a solution because it will only enhance the effect of $ in politics.

So your answer is to condone politicians being bought off by oil companies and to fuck the tax payer. Got it.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 04:44 PM
In the words of the President. "You would think the people would be saying thank you." Or was that thank you sir may I have another?

LMAO

cdcox
05-25-2010, 04:53 PM
So your answer is to condone politicians being bought off by oil companies and to **** the tax payer. Got it.

Who should pay for the clean up?

Who should pay for related economic damage?

Is it okay for it to take 10 or more years to establish liability and damages through the court system?

How do you clean up the pollution and reimburse people who are damaged when the court process is playing out?

Are we too stupid to find a fix, such as passing a law that requires taxes for a specific purpose (such as this one and SSI) to go into a designated account?

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 04:56 PM
Who should pay for the clean up?

Who should pay for related economic damage?

Is it okay for it to take 10 or more years to establish liability and damages through the court system?

How do you clean up the pollution and reimburse people who are damaged when the court process is playing out?

Are we too stupid to find a fix, such as passing a law that requires taxes for a specific purpose (such as this one and SSI) to go into a designated account?

Hey, leave me out of this.

cdcox
05-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Answers to my own questions.

Who should pay for the clean up? BP

Who should pay for related economic damage? BP

Is it okay for it to take 10 or more years to establish liability and damages through the court system? No

How do you clean up the pollution and reimburse people who are damaged when the court process is playing out? You tax the oil so those that use the oil and benefit most from its use pay the most for the clean up and financial impact until the legal process plays out.

Are we too stupid to find a fix, such as passing a law that requires taxes for a specific purpose (such as this one and SSI) to go into a designated account? No, we could do this.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 05:09 PM
Who should pay for the clean up?

BP

Who should pay for related economic damage?

BP

Is it okay for it to take 10 or more years to establish liability and damages through the court system?

Welcome to Ameirca

How do you clean up the pollution and reimburse people who are damaged when the court process is playing out?

Lawsuit. Just like anyone else would do

Are we too stupid to find a fix, such as passing a law that requires taxes for a specific purpose (such as this one and SSI) to go into a designated account?

Yes, tax the people more for another slush fund. That's a great answer. :rolleyes: