Over the past few weeks gasoline prices have inched back upward after experiencing the steepest decline in American history.
But have you noticed that this week alone prices at the pump have increased dramatically?
Here in the Carolinas we are paying roughly 10 cents a gallon more today than we were on Sunday.
Have you cared to ask why?
The reason is very simple and not far to find. Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made it clear, now that the 2008 election is over, that they have every intention of imposing more bans on oil drilling here at home. In fact, they have already taken steps to pass a bill that will insure no new tapping of energy sources in Wyoming.
Barack Obama's new Secretary of the Interior has further stated that he will oppose any attempt to increase domestic oil drilling anywhere on our own soil or on the outer continental shelf of our coastline.
The sharp spike in gasoline prices we have witnessed of late, in spite of the fact that on the market oil dipped below $30 a barrel, is directly connected to the energy policy of a Democratic Congress and an anti-oil drilling President.
Even CBS News admits it was wrong in failing to report that positive talk during Campaign '08 concerning 'drill here, drill now' led to a dramatic drop in gas prices.
Now that such talk is no longer being heard, in spite of the fact that overwhelming majorities of Americans want us to develop our own energy resources that include oil and natural gas, prices are headed back up.
And with higher federal taxes the Democrats want to slap on gasoline, get set my friends. Once again, we are going to be paying through the nose to drive to work.
Read the complete story here.
Showing posts with label gasoline prices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gasoline prices. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Price-Gouging Investigations in Western Carolinas
The Attorneys-General of North and South Carolina are investigating thousands of charges of price-gouging on the part of gasoline stations in the area.
North Carolina Attorney-General Roy Cooper has already sent subpoenas to dozens of gas stations in western North Carolina alone concerning customer complaints of outrageously unnecessary price increases at the pump.
Henry McMaster, South Carolina's Attorney-General stated on Monday that there appears to be some price-gouging by certain gasoline vendors but that his investigations would need to be completed before any formal charges would ensue.
McMaster stated that he has requested records from the accused vendors which should show that the price they paid for gasoline is reflected in the price at the pump. The mere fact that gasoline is higher, he said, is no indication that the station engaged in price gouging.
Price-gouging is a term that refers to a business that charges customers significantly higher prices than the prices the business paid for the commodity, taking advantage of consumers particularly during emergencies such as the recent hurricane.
In both North and South Carolina, a business that is convicted of price gouging faces a fine of $2000 per customer that was impacted by the gouging. Such fines can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single business, effectively bankrupting that business.
North Carolina Attorney-General Roy Cooper has already sent subpoenas to dozens of gas stations in western North Carolina alone concerning customer complaints of outrageously unnecessary price increases at the pump.
Henry McMaster, South Carolina's Attorney-General stated on Monday that there appears to be some price-gouging by certain gasoline vendors but that his investigations would need to be completed before any formal charges would ensue.
McMaster stated that he has requested records from the accused vendors which should show that the price they paid for gasoline is reflected in the price at the pump. The mere fact that gasoline is higher, he said, is no indication that the station engaged in price gouging.
Price-gouging is a term that refers to a business that charges customers significantly higher prices than the prices the business paid for the commodity, taking advantage of consumers particularly during emergencies such as the recent hurricane.
In both North and South Carolina, a business that is convicted of price gouging faces a fine of $2000 per customer that was impacted by the gouging. Such fines can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single business, effectively bankrupting that business.
Monday, September 15, 2008
This Time There IS Price-Gouging Post-Hurricane
As regular readers of this blog know, I have been a staunch defender of the right of oil companies to make a good profit, without government interference, for their shareholders.
The American people, a majority of whom are invested in oil companies through their various pension programs, also deserve to get a good return on their investment as they face retirement.
On the strength of oil company profits, our pension programs have been prevented from going broke in the wake of the poor performance of many other industries.
That being said, price-gouging is wrong, period. And many local gasoline vendors in the Southeast and the Deep South are guilty of it following Hurricane Ike.
As we have mentioned many times, the price of gasoline at the pump is largely determined by 'oil futures.' On the open market, the price of oil is determined by what investors, or 'oil speculators,' think the price of oil will be in the future.
The oil companies have stated over the weekend that there was no major disruption of oil production in the Gulf due to Hurricane Ike. They experienced a one-day shut-down at most, along with minimal damage.
Oil speculators have determined that the price of oil will be the lowest in over a year, with the price of crude dropping to just below 100 bucks per barrel--down over 20 bucks a barrel from just a few weeks ago.
Thus, there is no good reason for gasoline prices at the pump currently standing at 4 bucks per gallon and higher in the Southeast. Some have even sold gasoline for $5.60 per gallon.
With crude going for the cheapest prices we've seen in over a year, and with oil speculators bidding downward on the value of oil, we should be paying the lowest prices at the pump since the summer of 2007.
Unless the oil companies and their vendors on the local level bring this about, then the patience of the American people will run out, even among their fiercest defenders, such as myself.
Price-gouging is a despicable practice, and appearances mean everything. If the oil companies fail to act in good faith in response to market forces that are driving the price of oil DOWNWARD, then the American people will most definitely lose faith in the oil industry.
The time is NOW for gasoline prices to plummet if the oil industry expects to salvage what's left of its tentative reputation.
The American people, a majority of whom are invested in oil companies through their various pension programs, also deserve to get a good return on their investment as they face retirement.
On the strength of oil company profits, our pension programs have been prevented from going broke in the wake of the poor performance of many other industries.
That being said, price-gouging is wrong, period. And many local gasoline vendors in the Southeast and the Deep South are guilty of it following Hurricane Ike.
As we have mentioned many times, the price of gasoline at the pump is largely determined by 'oil futures.' On the open market, the price of oil is determined by what investors, or 'oil speculators,' think the price of oil will be in the future.
The oil companies have stated over the weekend that there was no major disruption of oil production in the Gulf due to Hurricane Ike. They experienced a one-day shut-down at most, along with minimal damage.
Oil speculators have determined that the price of oil will be the lowest in over a year, with the price of crude dropping to just below 100 bucks per barrel--down over 20 bucks a barrel from just a few weeks ago.
Thus, there is no good reason for gasoline prices at the pump currently standing at 4 bucks per gallon and higher in the Southeast. Some have even sold gasoline for $5.60 per gallon.
With crude going for the cheapest prices we've seen in over a year, and with oil speculators bidding downward on the value of oil, we should be paying the lowest prices at the pump since the summer of 2007.
Unless the oil companies and their vendors on the local level bring this about, then the patience of the American people will run out, even among their fiercest defenders, such as myself.
Price-gouging is a despicable practice, and appearances mean everything. If the oil companies fail to act in good faith in response to market forces that are driving the price of oil DOWNWARD, then the American people will most definitely lose faith in the oil industry.
The time is NOW for gasoline prices to plummet if the oil industry expects to salvage what's left of its tentative reputation.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 8/11/08
Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
From David Codrea's War on Guns:
*'The One Way Door of Separation'--it seems the government is giving money to churches if they will only buy into the pc movement of the church of Marxist secularism.
*'The Kenneth Stokes Solution' --this guy wants to ban gun sales at pawn shops.
*'Showdown in Atlanta'--the City of Atlanta squares off against gun owners TODAY. David says this one is one to watch very closely.
Armed and Safe has a MUST-read follow-up to the Mike Vanderboegh letter to the editor that created such a stir in the gun-rights community.
Mike Vanderboegh's 'Revolution' is posted at Western Rifle Shooters Association.
A Keyboard and a .45 gives us a range report.
Snow Flakes in Hell points to the Olympic Babe of the Day--a beautiful girl with a gun!
Folks, this is what it's all about--training non-gun folk to shoot. Nobody does more for this cause than Breda.
Say Uncle says that just when he thought the Democrats were 'getting it,' they put stupid things in their platform. Read it all.
Robb Allen posts 'Gun vs. Taser.'
Mike McCarville reports that most Americans believe that media bias is a bigger problem in the 2008 campaign than large campaign contributions.
Freedom Sight gives us an update on Red's Trading Post and Cavalry Arms.
Alphecca muses over a John McCain-Hillary Clinton ticket.
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel test out their newly-repaired Para Warthog...video included.
WSJ has a riveting op-ed, written by the President of Georgia, on the Russian invasion (h/t to Blogstitution).
Atlas Shrugs provides MUST-read commentary on the invasion, plus the response by John McCain and Barack Obama.
Michelle Malkin provides a helpful update on falling gasoline prices and the GOP's pressure on energy concerns, and has a MUST-read on Barack Obama's lies on abortion.
The Rustmeister points to a post that says Senator Bob Corker dropped the ball on energy policy by joining the Senate's 'Gang of 10.'
Texas Fred reports that he and his wife may be moving to California (for her job). Fred, if you have to do that, better take some strong disinfectant with you out there. The place is full of gun-grabbing Commies.
The Smallest Minority has a story that shows how dangerous the government has become in this country. As the great Ronald Reagan once said, 'The government IS the problem.'
Via Rezkorama, Reality Bytes shows just how far to the Left Barack Obama really is--you gotta see this!
An Ol' Broad's Ramblings reports the ominous news that Barack Obama supports the global tax from the U.N.
Syd at Front Sight, Press has a MOST interesting read on caliber snobbery. I suppose I fit into that category. I simply don't like the smaller caliber handguns, and frankly, I think they can be dangerous in a critical situation.
From David Codrea's War on Guns:
*'The One Way Door of Separation'--it seems the government is giving money to churches if they will only buy into the pc movement of the church of Marxist secularism.
*'The Kenneth Stokes Solution' --this guy wants to ban gun sales at pawn shops.
*'Showdown in Atlanta'--the City of Atlanta squares off against gun owners TODAY. David says this one is one to watch very closely.
Armed and Safe has a MUST-read follow-up to the Mike Vanderboegh letter to the editor that created such a stir in the gun-rights community.
Mike Vanderboegh's 'Revolution' is posted at Western Rifle Shooters Association.
A Keyboard and a .45 gives us a range report.
Snow Flakes in Hell points to the Olympic Babe of the Day--a beautiful girl with a gun!
Folks, this is what it's all about--training non-gun folk to shoot. Nobody does more for this cause than Breda.
Say Uncle says that just when he thought the Democrats were 'getting it,' they put stupid things in their platform. Read it all.
Robb Allen posts 'Gun vs. Taser.'
Mike McCarville reports that most Americans believe that media bias is a bigger problem in the 2008 campaign than large campaign contributions.
Freedom Sight gives us an update on Red's Trading Post and Cavalry Arms.
Alphecca muses over a John McCain-Hillary Clinton ticket.
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel test out their newly-repaired Para Warthog...video included.
WSJ has a riveting op-ed, written by the President of Georgia, on the Russian invasion (h/t to Blogstitution).
Atlas Shrugs provides MUST-read commentary on the invasion, plus the response by John McCain and Barack Obama.
Michelle Malkin provides a helpful update on falling gasoline prices and the GOP's pressure on energy concerns, and has a MUST-read on Barack Obama's lies on abortion.
The Rustmeister points to a post that says Senator Bob Corker dropped the ball on energy policy by joining the Senate's 'Gang of 10.'
Texas Fred reports that he and his wife may be moving to California (for her job). Fred, if you have to do that, better take some strong disinfectant with you out there. The place is full of gun-grabbing Commies.
The Smallest Minority has a story that shows how dangerous the government has become in this country. As the great Ronald Reagan once said, 'The government IS the problem.'
Via Rezkorama, Reality Bytes shows just how far to the Left Barack Obama really is--you gotta see this!
An Ol' Broad's Ramblings reports the ominous news that Barack Obama supports the global tax from the U.N.
Syd at Front Sight, Press has a MOST interesting read on caliber snobbery. I suppose I fit into that category. I simply don't like the smaller caliber handguns, and frankly, I think they can be dangerous in a critical situation.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Why Liberal Politicans Want Gas Prices High
It is a big mistake to believe liberal politicians who decry the high price of gasoline and condemn the oil companies for their 'obscene' profits.
Their crocodile tears are merely a smokescreen that hides their true intent.
And their charge that 'Bush did it to help his buddies in the oil business' is but a red herring to draw attention away from their sordid scheme.
Liberals, in fact, want our gasoline prices at the pump to be as high as they can go. And the reason is very simple--the higher the costs the more Americans will be forced to stop using gasoline.
The plan to which I refer is a simple but elaborate scheme to manipulate the markets so that gasoline prices will rise to a level that is totally beyond the reach of most Americans. The result, of course, is reduced consumption and a public outcry for alternative fuels.
Barack Obama openly admitted to this scheme in a news interview recently, during which he was asked if he were comfortable with the skyrocketing prices at the pump. He stated that he 'would have preferred a more gradual adjustment,' meaning, of course, that he did not deny at all his desire for gasoline prices to be high and for American consumers to hurt as a result.
He simply would have 'done it more gradually.'
To be fair, Obama is not the only liberal politician who has bought into this way of thinking.
Al Gore was one of the first to devise such a scheme of market manipulation, not only just prior to his 2000 Presidential campaign but going all the way back to 1994 when, as Vice-President, he cast the tie-breaking vote to mandate that oil companies provide a mixture of ethanol to be added to the gasoline sold at the pump.
The scheme has been a gradual increase in gasoline prices ever since, not to mention the fact that demand for ethanol has resulted in soaring food costs as politicians have sold their souls to the devil by taking food from the mouths of hungry children worldwide and making fuel out of it.
Democrats from Obama to Gore to Pelosi to Reed have all supported policies that prevent drilling for oil right here at home, where there are some of the richest crude oil fields in the world, while at the same time supporting measures that increase taxes on oil and gasoline and mandate alternative sources of energy that in essence do nothing to ease the financial burden on most Americans.
For example, they will not adequately fund the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, nuclear power, or even wind power. Ted Kennedy, for example, has consistently opposed the placing of windmills along the east coast.
At the same time, Democrats have opposed increasing refinery capacity and the building of more refineries--two measures that, along with oil exploration and drilling right here at home, would have the net effect of lowering the price of gasoline at the pump.
Liberals are heavily indebted to environmentalist extremists who believe that gasoline and cars are evil and that we should do anything to wean the country off of oil.
But the problem is that the market has been relatively uncooperative--until now.
As long as gasoline remained relatively cheap according to the world's standards, Americans had no real incentive to push for alternative fuels. And thus, the Democrats and their cohorts developed a multi-pronged plan to manipulate the markets, prevent oil exploration and drilling in this country, oppose every single proposal to develop nuclear and wind-based power, and mandate the use of corn for fuel, thus driving up the costs of energy and food.
And let us not forget that oil speculators who moved offshore so as to avoid regulation in the U.S. are one of the primary sources of oil prices skyrocketing on the open market.
These persons can be easily manipulated by corrupt politicians with sordid schemes who lure their prey by dangling the carrot in their faces of mega-profits from the purchase of oil futures.
That way, 'everybody wins.' Liberal politicians get their wish for oil to be priced out of reach, thus manipulating Americans to cut consumption, while at the same time insuring that speculators get a bounty from the oil price boon.
It's not rocket science, my friends. Obama, Pelosi, Gore, Reed, Kennedy, and others want you to suffer for your own good. And they ARE succeeding.
Their crocodile tears are merely a smokescreen that hides their true intent.
And their charge that 'Bush did it to help his buddies in the oil business' is but a red herring to draw attention away from their sordid scheme.
Liberals, in fact, want our gasoline prices at the pump to be as high as they can go. And the reason is very simple--the higher the costs the more Americans will be forced to stop using gasoline.
The plan to which I refer is a simple but elaborate scheme to manipulate the markets so that gasoline prices will rise to a level that is totally beyond the reach of most Americans. The result, of course, is reduced consumption and a public outcry for alternative fuels.
Barack Obama openly admitted to this scheme in a news interview recently, during which he was asked if he were comfortable with the skyrocketing prices at the pump. He stated that he 'would have preferred a more gradual adjustment,' meaning, of course, that he did not deny at all his desire for gasoline prices to be high and for American consumers to hurt as a result.
He simply would have 'done it more gradually.'
To be fair, Obama is not the only liberal politician who has bought into this way of thinking.
Al Gore was one of the first to devise such a scheme of market manipulation, not only just prior to his 2000 Presidential campaign but going all the way back to 1994 when, as Vice-President, he cast the tie-breaking vote to mandate that oil companies provide a mixture of ethanol to be added to the gasoline sold at the pump.
The scheme has been a gradual increase in gasoline prices ever since, not to mention the fact that demand for ethanol has resulted in soaring food costs as politicians have sold their souls to the devil by taking food from the mouths of hungry children worldwide and making fuel out of it.
Democrats from Obama to Gore to Pelosi to Reed have all supported policies that prevent drilling for oil right here at home, where there are some of the richest crude oil fields in the world, while at the same time supporting measures that increase taxes on oil and gasoline and mandate alternative sources of energy that in essence do nothing to ease the financial burden on most Americans.
For example, they will not adequately fund the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, nuclear power, or even wind power. Ted Kennedy, for example, has consistently opposed the placing of windmills along the east coast.
At the same time, Democrats have opposed increasing refinery capacity and the building of more refineries--two measures that, along with oil exploration and drilling right here at home, would have the net effect of lowering the price of gasoline at the pump.
Liberals are heavily indebted to environmentalist extremists who believe that gasoline and cars are evil and that we should do anything to wean the country off of oil.
But the problem is that the market has been relatively uncooperative--until now.
As long as gasoline remained relatively cheap according to the world's standards, Americans had no real incentive to push for alternative fuels. And thus, the Democrats and their cohorts developed a multi-pronged plan to manipulate the markets, prevent oil exploration and drilling in this country, oppose every single proposal to develop nuclear and wind-based power, and mandate the use of corn for fuel, thus driving up the costs of energy and food.
And let us not forget that oil speculators who moved offshore so as to avoid regulation in the U.S. are one of the primary sources of oil prices skyrocketing on the open market.
These persons can be easily manipulated by corrupt politicians with sordid schemes who lure their prey by dangling the carrot in their faces of mega-profits from the purchase of oil futures.
That way, 'everybody wins.' Liberal politicians get their wish for oil to be priced out of reach, thus manipulating Americans to cut consumption, while at the same time insuring that speculators get a bounty from the oil price boon.
It's not rocket science, my friends. Obama, Pelosi, Gore, Reed, Kennedy, and others want you to suffer for your own good. And they ARE succeeding.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Misplaced Blame
Americans are increasingly enraged about the price of gasoline, and rightly so. Skyrocketing gas prices are beginning to cut into the lifestyle choices to which most of us have become accustomed, forcing drivers to either cut back on driving or ditch their SUVs for small, fuel-efficient autos.
Oil companies and gas stations are easy targets for Americans' rage in the blame game. After all, somebody, somewhere is to blame for this mess. And it just so happens that the oil companies are making excellent profits for their stockholders, which good corporations are supposed to do.
Of course, the mainstream media never reports that the profit margin percentage for companies like Microsoft and Google is much larger than that of the oil companies. In the liberal blame-game, it is always politically correct to blame the oil companies.
But is it fair to blame the oil companies?
Consider some facts. In 1992 the price of a barrel of crude oil was about 15 bucks. By 1998, ten years ago, crude oil cost roughly $25 per barrel.
Within the last 10 years the price of crude on the open market has steadily increased as demand for the commodity has skyrocketed with China and India beginning to use oil increasingly in their growing economies.
That steady increase in the market value of crude reached an unheard-of $127 per barrel this month. That's roughly 100 bucks per barrel higher than in 1998.
Oil companies do not set the price of crude. The open market determines the price based upon investors/speculators. China and India are now using millions of barrels of oil, meaning, of course, that they are now near the top among the countries of the world in the production of 'greenhouse gases.'
Yet the United Nations granted both countries an exemption from its 'mandated' reduction in greenhouse gases.
With these two countries now using as much oil as most any other country in the world, and with our dependence on foreign oil still remaining at a fairly high level, it is no wonder that the markets have created a financial bonanza for crude.
When the oil companies are having to pay 100 bucks per barrel more for crude than they did 10 years ago, is it really a surprise that gasoline prices have skyrocketed when compared to the past?
The solution that many liberals are selling to a gullible public is to place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. My friends, oil is already taxed at a rate that boggles the mind. For every 8 cents the oil companies make in profits, the federal government alone collects 18 cents in taxes, and that doesn't count state and local taxes.
In short, the federal government is making windfall profits off of the oil company profits.
So, why does the government need or want more?
In addition, the environmentalist nutcases have seen to it that not only are we forbidden from drilling for oil anywhere in the country but that we are blocked from building more nuclear power facilities or new oil refineries. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. for over 30 years.
Thus, if the answer is weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, how can that be done when a few very powerful extremists have tied our hands?
It should be noted that one of the environmentalists' favorite countries, France, is powered almost exclusively by nuclear energy to the tune of at least 80% of its energy needs.
With new technology that makes nuclear energy as safe as any type of energy on the planet outside of solar, there should be no reason why the U.S. should not build more nuclear facilities and shift to that form of energy as quickly as possible. Nuclear power also ranks with solar as the cleanest form of energy available.
But the answer is not 'taking oil company profits' out of the hands of stockholders in order to fund these alternative energy sources. We were ALREADY funding alternative sources until the environmentalist nutcases put a stop to it.
Ted Kennedy will not even allow windmill-generated wind power to be developed on the shoreline of Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Thus, who IS to blame for the current crisis? Look no further than the environmentalist movement, liberals like Ted Kennedy, and countries like China and India. The oil companies and your local gasoline vendor are no more to blame for the rising prices than your grocer is to blame for rising food prices due to the environmentalist insistence that we take crops and turn them into bio-fuel instead of food.
Oil companies and gas stations are easy targets for Americans' rage in the blame game. After all, somebody, somewhere is to blame for this mess. And it just so happens that the oil companies are making excellent profits for their stockholders, which good corporations are supposed to do.
Of course, the mainstream media never reports that the profit margin percentage for companies like Microsoft and Google is much larger than that of the oil companies. In the liberal blame-game, it is always politically correct to blame the oil companies.
But is it fair to blame the oil companies?
Consider some facts. In 1992 the price of a barrel of crude oil was about 15 bucks. By 1998, ten years ago, crude oil cost roughly $25 per barrel.
Within the last 10 years the price of crude on the open market has steadily increased as demand for the commodity has skyrocketed with China and India beginning to use oil increasingly in their growing economies.
That steady increase in the market value of crude reached an unheard-of $127 per barrel this month. That's roughly 100 bucks per barrel higher than in 1998.
Oil companies do not set the price of crude. The open market determines the price based upon investors/speculators. China and India are now using millions of barrels of oil, meaning, of course, that they are now near the top among the countries of the world in the production of 'greenhouse gases.'
Yet the United Nations granted both countries an exemption from its 'mandated' reduction in greenhouse gases.
With these two countries now using as much oil as most any other country in the world, and with our dependence on foreign oil still remaining at a fairly high level, it is no wonder that the markets have created a financial bonanza for crude.
When the oil companies are having to pay 100 bucks per barrel more for crude than they did 10 years ago, is it really a surprise that gasoline prices have skyrocketed when compared to the past?
The solution that many liberals are selling to a gullible public is to place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. My friends, oil is already taxed at a rate that boggles the mind. For every 8 cents the oil companies make in profits, the federal government alone collects 18 cents in taxes, and that doesn't count state and local taxes.
In short, the federal government is making windfall profits off of the oil company profits.
So, why does the government need or want more?
In addition, the environmentalist nutcases have seen to it that not only are we forbidden from drilling for oil anywhere in the country but that we are blocked from building more nuclear power facilities or new oil refineries. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. for over 30 years.
Thus, if the answer is weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, how can that be done when a few very powerful extremists have tied our hands?
It should be noted that one of the environmentalists' favorite countries, France, is powered almost exclusively by nuclear energy to the tune of at least 80% of its energy needs.
With new technology that makes nuclear energy as safe as any type of energy on the planet outside of solar, there should be no reason why the U.S. should not build more nuclear facilities and shift to that form of energy as quickly as possible. Nuclear power also ranks with solar as the cleanest form of energy available.
But the answer is not 'taking oil company profits' out of the hands of stockholders in order to fund these alternative energy sources. We were ALREADY funding alternative sources until the environmentalist nutcases put a stop to it.
Ted Kennedy will not even allow windmill-generated wind power to be developed on the shoreline of Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Thus, who IS to blame for the current crisis? Look no further than the environmentalist movement, liberals like Ted Kennedy, and countries like China and India. The oil companies and your local gasoline vendor are no more to blame for the rising prices than your grocer is to blame for rising food prices due to the environmentalist insistence that we take crops and turn them into bio-fuel instead of food.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Democrats Hide the Truth About Big Oil
To hear Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats tell it, the big oil companies are the biggest enemies to American society since Hitler decided to bomb Great Britain.
Almost on a daily basis someone in the majority Party can be heard denouncing, demonizing, and denigrating the oil companies, mainly due to high gas prices but also due to the notion that big oil is the supposed biggest contributor to 'global warming,' despite the fact that this year the globe has had the biggest and deepest snow cover in a number of years and the planet has enjoyed the coolest year since 2001.
Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that she wants to 'take that money' from the oil companies (that is, rob their profits) for the purpose of starting a government fund to push alternative energy sources. Barack Obama wants blacks and whites to come together to topple the business-industrial complex. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) wants to slap a 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase on gasoline because, well, he wants people to stop driving.
The truth of the matter, however, is that in all likelihood Clinton, Obama, Dingell, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, and all of the rest of the majority Party probably have invested heavily in 'big oil.'
How do I know this for a fact? Because I know for a fact that a full 40% of Americans are heavily invested in big oil. And the real figure is much higher than that.
If you have mutual funds, stock market funds, or if you have a pension fund, a 401-K, an IRA, or even a bank account, you are invested in the big oil companies because these companies have had the greatest return on investments.
The more money a person has invested in the various financial markets, the more money they have tied up in the big oil companies. And pension funds routinely put that money in stocks that have the biggest return.
Thus, when Hillary Clinton speaks of socking it to the oil companies, she is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Surely she would not want to give up the profits from her investments, yet she does not want average Americans to know this. She wants to tap in on the misplaced anger many Americans have toward the oil companies.
It is actually big government that is responsible for most of the increases at the pump...at the rate of 7 times the amount the oil companies get in profits.
And, let's face it, Barack Obama is as rich as all get-out. Where do the rich put their money? They invest it in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. Thus, in all likelihood Obama is making a good profit on his investments, part of which are in the oil companies if his broker has any sense at all.
In addition, at present big oil companies are the single biggest source for developing alternative forms of energy that are eco-friendly and that greatly reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
These companies do not want to go out of business. They owe it to their millions of stockholders--people just like you and me--to look forward to the future when using oil for energy may not be feasible or prudent.
The oil companies at present are investing billions in developing these alternative sources of energy. It only makes sense. They already have the infrastructure in place to do so, and they have thousands of outlets by the roadside to make these alternative sources readily available.
In this way the oil companies not only protect themselves from going out of business, but they protect our pension plans, stock investments, mutual funds, etc.
Thus, the next time you hear the majority Party lambaste the big oil companies, remember they are engaging in rank demagoguery.
Almost on a daily basis someone in the majority Party can be heard denouncing, demonizing, and denigrating the oil companies, mainly due to high gas prices but also due to the notion that big oil is the supposed biggest contributor to 'global warming,' despite the fact that this year the globe has had the biggest and deepest snow cover in a number of years and the planet has enjoyed the coolest year since 2001.
Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that she wants to 'take that money' from the oil companies (that is, rob their profits) for the purpose of starting a government fund to push alternative energy sources. Barack Obama wants blacks and whites to come together to topple the business-industrial complex. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) wants to slap a 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase on gasoline because, well, he wants people to stop driving.
The truth of the matter, however, is that in all likelihood Clinton, Obama, Dingell, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, and all of the rest of the majority Party probably have invested heavily in 'big oil.'
How do I know this for a fact? Because I know for a fact that a full 40% of Americans are heavily invested in big oil. And the real figure is much higher than that.
If you have mutual funds, stock market funds, or if you have a pension fund, a 401-K, an IRA, or even a bank account, you are invested in the big oil companies because these companies have had the greatest return on investments.
The more money a person has invested in the various financial markets, the more money they have tied up in the big oil companies. And pension funds routinely put that money in stocks that have the biggest return.
Thus, when Hillary Clinton speaks of socking it to the oil companies, she is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Surely she would not want to give up the profits from her investments, yet she does not want average Americans to know this. She wants to tap in on the misplaced anger many Americans have toward the oil companies.
It is actually big government that is responsible for most of the increases at the pump...at the rate of 7 times the amount the oil companies get in profits.
And, let's face it, Barack Obama is as rich as all get-out. Where do the rich put their money? They invest it in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. Thus, in all likelihood Obama is making a good profit on his investments, part of which are in the oil companies if his broker has any sense at all.
In addition, at present big oil companies are the single biggest source for developing alternative forms of energy that are eco-friendly and that greatly reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
These companies do not want to go out of business. They owe it to their millions of stockholders--people just like you and me--to look forward to the future when using oil for energy may not be feasible or prudent.
The oil companies at present are investing billions in developing these alternative sources of energy. It only makes sense. They already have the infrastructure in place to do so, and they have thousands of outlets by the roadside to make these alternative sources readily available.
In this way the oil companies not only protect themselves from going out of business, but they protect our pension plans, stock investments, mutual funds, etc.
Thus, the next time you hear the majority Party lambaste the big oil companies, remember they are engaging in rank demagoguery.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Poll Results on Hillary's Gasoline Claim
The results from our exclusive online (and unscientific) poll on Hillary Clinton's claim that electing her to office will result in an immediate lowering of gasoline prices are in. This short-term poll lasted for one week only and portrays a sampling of the views of the readers of The Liberty Sphere.
Hillary's claim did not fair very well with Liberty Sphere readers. By an overwhelming majority (over 75% of respondents), our readers think that Hillary Clinton is completely nuts. This is no surprise, given that The Liberty Sphere attracts some of the most deep-thinking, bright, and politically astute minds in the blogosphere.
14% of you stated that Hillary's policies would have the exact opposite effect from her claim--meaning, of course, that her election would have the effect of raising gasoline prices.
These two top choices in the poll account for a whopping 89% of respondents.
The choice that said, 'Yes, she is a genius,' received only one vote.
The remaining choice, 'Maybe, but the decrease will be due to many factors,' also received one vote.
As you can see, Hillary Clinton is not exactly a popular figure here at The Liberty Sphere. If only the rest of the country could see what we see.
Hillary's claim did not fair very well with Liberty Sphere readers. By an overwhelming majority (over 75% of respondents), our readers think that Hillary Clinton is completely nuts. This is no surprise, given that The Liberty Sphere attracts some of the most deep-thinking, bright, and politically astute minds in the blogosphere.
14% of you stated that Hillary's policies would have the exact opposite effect from her claim--meaning, of course, that her election would have the effect of raising gasoline prices.
These two top choices in the poll account for a whopping 89% of respondents.
The choice that said, 'Yes, she is a genius,' received only one vote.
The remaining choice, 'Maybe, but the decrease will be due to many factors,' also received one vote.
As you can see, Hillary Clinton is not exactly a popular figure here at The Liberty Sphere. If only the rest of the country could see what we see.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
More on Hillary's Gas Problem
Not only has Hillary Clinton opened herself to endless jokes, centering on the unfortunate pun that many with periodic juvenile tendencies like me will use as fodder, but she has also demonstrated in the waning days just before the Iowa Caucuses that she will do anything to get elected, including the obvious demagoguery inherent in her claim that a vote for her is a vote to lower oil prices.
As if she has any control over that whatsoever...
Nonetheless, she now has a major problem on her hands--a gas problem of mammoth proportions. OK, for you prudes out there, a gasoline problem.
Several points of consideration become readily apparent:
1. The candidate is so desperate that she will risk alienating thinking people by claiming that if she is elected oil prices will automatically and immediately drop.
2. She is also arrogant enough to assume that Iowans will accept her assessment that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' with energy policy and that Ronald Reagan ruined it all by dismantling Carter's work, which by the way, was quite a job. During Carter's tenure gasoline prices more than doubled, not to mention the shortages and long lines at the pump.
3. The fact that she used one of the most unpopular and discredited Presidents in U.S. history to bolster her views on energy policy is not exactly the most prudent course in an election. And then, to turn around and bash one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history is simply nuts.
4. The candidate knows that most voters are NOT going to know the facts and figures about taxes on gasoline as opposed to the profits of the oil companies. She can thus lie to them and deceive them. But right here on The Liberty Sphere you will get the facts. Better still, do your own research. The oil companies make 13 cents per gallon in profits on gasoline sold in America. The federal government, and state and local governments, get roughly 60-80 cents per gallon (depending on the area of the country) in gasoline taxes.
It would seem, then, that if anyone is making a 'windfall profit' on gasoline, it is most assuredly the government.
Yet Mrs. Clinton wishes to raise the federal tax on gasoline even further, brow-beat the oil companies into lowering prices, and thus cut into the profits of the shareholders, and then further take much of whatever profits remain in order to set up a fund in Washington for 'alternative fuels.'
This is a recipe for disaster at the pump with regard to prices, not to mention that Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez would be most proud.
Perhaps citizens in Iowa will catch on to Hillary's latest scheme and send her a strong and clear message during the caucuses.
As if she has any control over that whatsoever...
Nonetheless, she now has a major problem on her hands--a gas problem of mammoth proportions. OK, for you prudes out there, a gasoline problem.
Several points of consideration become readily apparent:
1. The candidate is so desperate that she will risk alienating thinking people by claiming that if she is elected oil prices will automatically and immediately drop.
2. She is also arrogant enough to assume that Iowans will accept her assessment that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' with energy policy and that Ronald Reagan ruined it all by dismantling Carter's work, which by the way, was quite a job. During Carter's tenure gasoline prices more than doubled, not to mention the shortages and long lines at the pump.
3. The fact that she used one of the most unpopular and discredited Presidents in U.S. history to bolster her views on energy policy is not exactly the most prudent course in an election. And then, to turn around and bash one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history is simply nuts.
4. The candidate knows that most voters are NOT going to know the facts and figures about taxes on gasoline as opposed to the profits of the oil companies. She can thus lie to them and deceive them. But right here on The Liberty Sphere you will get the facts. Better still, do your own research. The oil companies make 13 cents per gallon in profits on gasoline sold in America. The federal government, and state and local governments, get roughly 60-80 cents per gallon (depending on the area of the country) in gasoline taxes.
It would seem, then, that if anyone is making a 'windfall profit' on gasoline, it is most assuredly the government.
Yet Mrs. Clinton wishes to raise the federal tax on gasoline even further, brow-beat the oil companies into lowering prices, and thus cut into the profits of the shareholders, and then further take much of whatever profits remain in order to set up a fund in Washington for 'alternative fuels.'
This is a recipe for disaster at the pump with regard to prices, not to mention that Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez would be most proud.
Perhaps citizens in Iowa will catch on to Hillary's latest scheme and send her a strong and clear message during the caucuses.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Vote In Our Exclusive Poll on Hillary's Gas Claims
Well, my friends, it seems that during this year's holiday season 'Hillary' and 'gas' have become synonymous.
I know what you are thinking. You think I am referring to her playing up her haggard, middle-aged woman thing, as she attempts to appeal to one of her strongest bases of support, older women.
Why, I would never in a million years remotely suggest that Hillary has a gas problem. There are too many good remedies for that on the market.
Nope, this is about Hillary's claim that if she is elected gas prices will immediately plummet.
What say you? Vote in The Liberty Sphere's exclusive poll you will see in the left sidebar. You can select more than one answer. The poll is open until 11:59 PM on Jan. 1 and is unscientific.
Come on, let your voice be heard on Hillary's gas.
I know what you are thinking. You think I am referring to her playing up her haggard, middle-aged woman thing, as she attempts to appeal to one of her strongest bases of support, older women.
Why, I would never in a million years remotely suggest that Hillary has a gas problem. There are too many good remedies for that on the market.
Nope, this is about Hillary's claim that if she is elected gas prices will immediately plummet.
What say you? Vote in The Liberty Sphere's exclusive poll you will see in the left sidebar. You can select more than one answer. The poll is open until 11:59 PM on Jan. 1 and is unscientific.
Come on, let your voice be heard on Hillary's gas.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Political Ramifications of the Coming Hybrid Craze
With oil hitting $80 a barrel this week and with China set to become the world's top consumer of petroleum-based products, it is no wonder that most economic prognosticators see a coming boon to the production and sale of hybrid autos.
The introduction of the hybrid into the regular buying routine of the consumer is the first step of the free market in driving buyers away from oil.
Americans are the key indicators of free market trends, and Americans are increasingly deciding that gasoline is way too expensive for our type of economy. Further, it is useless at this point to compare U.S. gasoline prices to that of Britain or any other European country. The U.S. is a commuter-driven economy that is entirely dependent on the demand for autos rather than mass transit.
Thus, it is too easy for one to point to the significantly higher costs of gasoline in Great Britain and claim, therefore, that Americans are too whiny.
If drivers in Great Britain were forced to endure the commuter miles of most working Americans in most of our larger cities, I highly doubt that Britons would be talking about how good Americans have it.
Yes, gasoline is much cheaper here than in England, but we drive infinitely more miles to and from work than Britons. Thus, we consume much more gasoline, which of course means that we spend far more on it.
Further, not only are Americans wary of rising gas prices but they wish to be independent of foreign oil. I suspect that most Americans are like me; they long for the day when we can tell the Saudis and other Arab countries, along with Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Mexico, to simply go jump. We don't need their freakin' oil anymore.
Such countries have held the oil matter over our heads for much too long. We have had enough. Let the Chinese be the hostages of Middle Eastern oil for a while.
Thus, with factors such as the free market squeeze on the pocketbook and the emotional/political issue of hating to be held captive by nations that are centuries behind the rest of civilization, we are set to see a new phase of American consumerism. i.e., the hybrid.
On Wednesday at the International Auto Show in Frankfurt, Germany, BMW announced that it will unveil a new auto to add to its fleet of luxury cars--the X6, which has a hybrid equivalent. The X6 is a coup crossover, which BMW bills as its 'sports activity coup.'
With the first of BMW's new concept cars set to roll off the assembly line in 2009, the X6 will be built at BMW's North American operations plant in Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
BMW refers to the hybrid version of the X6 as its 'activehybrid,' which is powered by a gasoline engine and two high-performance electric motors, along with a brake energy regeneration system.
The big news about the new car, however, is that this is BMW's very first venture into hybrid technology. As one auto analyst put it, 'This shows that hybrids are not only here to stay but set to seize a sizable portion of the market.'
Of course hybrid technology is not new. Both Honda and Toyota have had hybrid models on the market for nearly ten years. And U.S. automakers began mass production of hybrid models in earnest five years ago.
Yet hybrid autos have been slow to catch on with the general public. This may be quickly coming to a close. As more Americans decide they must take action to buffer the brunt of higher gasoline prices, there is no doubt that hybrids will look much more appealing.
And with mass production and higher sales, those hybrids will in all probability become more affordable for the average family.
The coming shift in consumer markets will lead to a realignment of political alliances. One can easily imagining closer ties with Japan, Germany, and even India, while nations such as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and others in the oil-rich region lose much of their economic and political clout.
In the meantime it will be exciting to watch how the free market and American ingenuity lead the way in providing long-term solutions for our current energy problems. The hybrid is only the beginning.
The introduction of the hybrid into the regular buying routine of the consumer is the first step of the free market in driving buyers away from oil.
Americans are the key indicators of free market trends, and Americans are increasingly deciding that gasoline is way too expensive for our type of economy. Further, it is useless at this point to compare U.S. gasoline prices to that of Britain or any other European country. The U.S. is a commuter-driven economy that is entirely dependent on the demand for autos rather than mass transit.
Thus, it is too easy for one to point to the significantly higher costs of gasoline in Great Britain and claim, therefore, that Americans are too whiny.
If drivers in Great Britain were forced to endure the commuter miles of most working Americans in most of our larger cities, I highly doubt that Britons would be talking about how good Americans have it.
Yes, gasoline is much cheaper here than in England, but we drive infinitely more miles to and from work than Britons. Thus, we consume much more gasoline, which of course means that we spend far more on it.
Further, not only are Americans wary of rising gas prices but they wish to be independent of foreign oil. I suspect that most Americans are like me; they long for the day when we can tell the Saudis and other Arab countries, along with Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Mexico, to simply go jump. We don't need their freakin' oil anymore.
Such countries have held the oil matter over our heads for much too long. We have had enough. Let the Chinese be the hostages of Middle Eastern oil for a while.
Thus, with factors such as the free market squeeze on the pocketbook and the emotional/political issue of hating to be held captive by nations that are centuries behind the rest of civilization, we are set to see a new phase of American consumerism. i.e., the hybrid.
On Wednesday at the International Auto Show in Frankfurt, Germany, BMW announced that it will unveil a new auto to add to its fleet of luxury cars--the X6, which has a hybrid equivalent. The X6 is a coup crossover, which BMW bills as its 'sports activity coup.'
With the first of BMW's new concept cars set to roll off the assembly line in 2009, the X6 will be built at BMW's North American operations plant in Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
BMW refers to the hybrid version of the X6 as its 'activehybrid,' which is powered by a gasoline engine and two high-performance electric motors, along with a brake energy regeneration system.
The big news about the new car, however, is that this is BMW's very first venture into hybrid technology. As one auto analyst put it, 'This shows that hybrids are not only here to stay but set to seize a sizable portion of the market.'
Of course hybrid technology is not new. Both Honda and Toyota have had hybrid models on the market for nearly ten years. And U.S. automakers began mass production of hybrid models in earnest five years ago.
Yet hybrid autos have been slow to catch on with the general public. This may be quickly coming to a close. As more Americans decide they must take action to buffer the brunt of higher gasoline prices, there is no doubt that hybrids will look much more appealing.
And with mass production and higher sales, those hybrids will in all probability become more affordable for the average family.
The coming shift in consumer markets will lead to a realignment of political alliances. One can easily imagining closer ties with Japan, Germany, and even India, while nations such as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and others in the oil-rich region lose much of their economic and political clout.
In the meantime it will be exciting to watch how the free market and American ingenuity lead the way in providing long-term solutions for our current energy problems. The hybrid is only the beginning.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Hillary, Pelosi Lying About Gas Price-Gouging
Washington, DC (TLS). Two of Washington's premier Socialists, Senator Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been decrying so-called 'price-gouging' by the big oil companies.
First, it was Hillary with her now-infamous line from her stump speech concerning oil company profits--'We are going to take that money and put it in a fund for the development of alternative forms of energy.'
Spoken like a true Socialist.
Now it is Nancy Pelosi's condemnation of the oil companies this week, reacting to a new national average price of $3.07 per gallon of gas.
Pelosi was incensed by the fact that in her home district of San Francisco, the highest price of gasoline stood at $3.49 per gallon. Thus, she introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 1252, to 'protect consumers from price-gouging.'
Time for a reality check, Ms. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi.
When adjusted for inflation over a 25-year period, the national average for a gallon of gas is actually LOWER today than it was in 1981, just as Jimmy Carter was leaving the White House.
In addition, apparently consumers need protection from GOVERNMENT price gouging rather than gouging by the oil companies!
If anyone would bother to check the actual figures, one would find that the big oil companies make roughly 13 cents per gallon on the gasoline that is sold in America. Out of an average price of $3.07 per gallon, the big oil companies themselves gain a profit of just 13 CENTS PER GALLON.
Would anyone like to guess what THE GOVERNMENT makes on a gallon of gas?
Remember, a huge chunk of what you and I pay at the pump is for TAXES, both state and federal. Thus, for each gallon of gas sold, the federal government makes 18.4 cents per gallon. That is 5.4 cents per gallon higher than what those 'price-gouging' oil companies make!
On top of that, in the state of California, 40.2 cents per gallon goes to the state government. In other words, the state of California makes THREE TIMES the amount of profit the oil companies get from a gallon of gas.
And we are not through yet. Let's look at Pelosi's district alone, shall we? In the San Francisco Congressional district, which Pelosi represents, consumers pay a LOCAL tax on top of the state and federal tax. San Francisco residents pay another 8.2% in local sales taxes for their gasoline.
Thus, for every gallon of gasoline you purchase, you are going to pay at least 58.6 cents per gallon in federal and state taxes, plus 8.2% of the total for your local taxes.
For one gallon of gas, the government gets 58.6 cents plus 8.2% as compared to the 13 cents in profit that goes to the oil companies.
So who is actually doing the gouging here?
This is why I say that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are lying, deliberately attempting to deceive the American people.
Let's do the math in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you pull up to the pump in San Francisco in your eco-friendly hybrid, and it so happens you have found one lone gas station selling gasoline at the national average of 3.07 per gallon. Let's say you purchase ten gallons of gas for the total price of $30.70.
Out of that total price of $30.70, the oil companies make a whopping $1.30 in profit. ONE DOLLAR AND THIRTY CENTS out of your tank of gas.
The federal government makes $1.84 in federal taxes...54 cents higher than the 'profit' the oil companies make.
As for the state of California, out of your $30.70 purchase, the state government will get $4.02. Don't let this one escape your attention. The oil companies make one dollar and thirty cents' profit out of your purchase, but the state of California makes FOUR DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS.
We're still not finished yet. We still have to add two dollars and forty-eight cents for the 8.2% local sales tax for San Francisco.
Thus, out of your purchase of $30.70 in gasoline, you will pay $8.34 in federal, state, and local sales taxes. Yet you have paid the big oil companies a mere $1.30 out of your purchase.
And this brings us back to the central point. Why would Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lie to the American public about so-called 'price gouging' by the big oil companies? In fact, they really do have a great amount of gall to suggest such a thing when the government will get over SIX TIMES that amount per gallon of gas sold.
Naturally, neither Clinton nor Pelosi would view such a thing as highway robbery. As long as the government does it, it is automatically for the 'greater good.' But the minute you let a corporation make a profit--and a tiny one at that--then that company is automatically a price-gouging, evil, corrupt, and malevolent example of capitalism.
Do you want to pay lower prices at the gas pump? Well, you are targeting the wrong people if you strike out at the oil companies. Get these gasoline taxes either lowered or eliminated, and you will automatically save 8 bucks per tank (10 gallons) in the state of California.
If you drive a large vehicle you will save about 16 bucks per tank.
Thus, when you feel the pain at the pump, be sure to remember just what is the biggest source of that pain--the government and not the oil companies.
First, it was Hillary with her now-infamous line from her stump speech concerning oil company profits--'We are going to take that money and put it in a fund for the development of alternative forms of energy.'
Spoken like a true Socialist.
Now it is Nancy Pelosi's condemnation of the oil companies this week, reacting to a new national average price of $3.07 per gallon of gas.
Pelosi was incensed by the fact that in her home district of San Francisco, the highest price of gasoline stood at $3.49 per gallon. Thus, she introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 1252, to 'protect consumers from price-gouging.'
Time for a reality check, Ms. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi.
When adjusted for inflation over a 25-year period, the national average for a gallon of gas is actually LOWER today than it was in 1981, just as Jimmy Carter was leaving the White House.
In addition, apparently consumers need protection from GOVERNMENT price gouging rather than gouging by the oil companies!
If anyone would bother to check the actual figures, one would find that the big oil companies make roughly 13 cents per gallon on the gasoline that is sold in America. Out of an average price of $3.07 per gallon, the big oil companies themselves gain a profit of just 13 CENTS PER GALLON.
Would anyone like to guess what THE GOVERNMENT makes on a gallon of gas?
Remember, a huge chunk of what you and I pay at the pump is for TAXES, both state and federal. Thus, for each gallon of gas sold, the federal government makes 18.4 cents per gallon. That is 5.4 cents per gallon higher than what those 'price-gouging' oil companies make!
On top of that, in the state of California, 40.2 cents per gallon goes to the state government. In other words, the state of California makes THREE TIMES the amount of profit the oil companies get from a gallon of gas.
And we are not through yet. Let's look at Pelosi's district alone, shall we? In the San Francisco Congressional district, which Pelosi represents, consumers pay a LOCAL tax on top of the state and federal tax. San Francisco residents pay another 8.2% in local sales taxes for their gasoline.
Thus, for every gallon of gasoline you purchase, you are going to pay at least 58.6 cents per gallon in federal and state taxes, plus 8.2% of the total for your local taxes.
For one gallon of gas, the government gets 58.6 cents plus 8.2% as compared to the 13 cents in profit that goes to the oil companies.
So who is actually doing the gouging here?
This is why I say that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are lying, deliberately attempting to deceive the American people.
Let's do the math in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you pull up to the pump in San Francisco in your eco-friendly hybrid, and it so happens you have found one lone gas station selling gasoline at the national average of 3.07 per gallon. Let's say you purchase ten gallons of gas for the total price of $30.70.
Out of that total price of $30.70, the oil companies make a whopping $1.30 in profit. ONE DOLLAR AND THIRTY CENTS out of your tank of gas.
The federal government makes $1.84 in federal taxes...54 cents higher than the 'profit' the oil companies make.
As for the state of California, out of your $30.70 purchase, the state government will get $4.02. Don't let this one escape your attention. The oil companies make one dollar and thirty cents' profit out of your purchase, but the state of California makes FOUR DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS.
We're still not finished yet. We still have to add two dollars and forty-eight cents for the 8.2% local sales tax for San Francisco.
Thus, out of your purchase of $30.70 in gasoline, you will pay $8.34 in federal, state, and local sales taxes. Yet you have paid the big oil companies a mere $1.30 out of your purchase.
And this brings us back to the central point. Why would Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lie to the American public about so-called 'price gouging' by the big oil companies? In fact, they really do have a great amount of gall to suggest such a thing when the government will get over SIX TIMES that amount per gallon of gas sold.
Naturally, neither Clinton nor Pelosi would view such a thing as highway robbery. As long as the government does it, it is automatically for the 'greater good.' But the minute you let a corporation make a profit--and a tiny one at that--then that company is automatically a price-gouging, evil, corrupt, and malevolent example of capitalism.
Do you want to pay lower prices at the gas pump? Well, you are targeting the wrong people if you strike out at the oil companies. Get these gasoline taxes either lowered or eliminated, and you will automatically save 8 bucks per tank (10 gallons) in the state of California.
If you drive a large vehicle you will save about 16 bucks per tank.
Thus, when you feel the pain at the pump, be sure to remember just what is the biggest source of that pain--the government and not the oil companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)