This is a special Liberty Alert.
Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama stated today that he supports a 'windfall profits tax' on oil companies, in addition to proposals by Democrats to increase the federal tax-per-gallon on gasoline.
Federal, state, and local governments already make 7 times the amount of money the oil companies make from profits. These proposals from Obama and the Democrats do nothing but add to the burden average Americans already feel resulting from the increasing oil prices.
In addition, Obama stated today that he supports a national fingerprint I.D. database. Human rights groups have long vehemently opposed such measures as a blatant and unnecessary intrusion into personal privacy.
What's next? 'Papers, please.'
Sieg Heil!
Showing posts with label oil company profits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil company profits. Show all posts
Monday, June 09, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Bill O'Reilly WRONG About Oil
I happened to catch part of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly's radio show this evening, and I must admit I was shocked to hear some of the positions taken by the popular media personality.
Of late I have found myself breaking ranks with O'Reilly on an increasing number of issues, but I was floored that he would spout the common 'blame the oil companies' mantra that one hears from Democrats in Congress.
To get straight to the point, O'Reilly is FLAT WRONG about oil.
In order to 'fix' the problem of rising oil prices, O'Reilly would punish the oil companies, as if they are the ones responsible for the problem, which they aren't. He also came close to spouting the Obama claim that the oil companies are guilty of 'price gouging,' though he stopped just sort of saying that.
Once again, let's set the record straight, shall we?
Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 70 cents goes to purchase crude oil, most of which is imported from other countries. Crude is up by 100 dollars per barrel since 1998.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that most of the increases in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 10 years can be traced directly to the price of crude.
The big oil companies must purchase this crude, the price of which is set by the open market, OPEC, and investors/speculators.
Further, out of every dollar we spend at the pump, only about 3 cents goes to the big oil companies in profits.
But here is the biggie. Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 6.5 cents goes for federal taxes, and anywhere from 15 to 20 cents goes for state and local taxes, depending on the state/municipality in which one lives.
As you can see, this leaves very little profit margin for local gas stations.
Thus, if Mr. O'Reilly wishes to play the blame game, he is picking on the wrong ones. Government at the federal, state, and local levels makes 8 times what the oil companies make in profits. And as long as crude oil accounts for 70% of the price we pay at the pump, Americans will see very little relief until the price of crude comes down.
And instead of brow-beating the oil companies for doing what a corporation is supposed to do--make a profit for its stockholders--why not brow-beat government for raking in multi-billions of dollars in taxes on gasoline? Why isn't anyone talking about or reporting how much government profits from these high gasoline prices?
It's very simple. They don't want you to know.
I can tell you this, the next time you hear a specific number on oil company profits, just multiply that number by 7, and you will get a ballpark estimate of what government is raking in from gasoline prices.
Those are the simple facts regardless of any demagoguery from O'Reilly or the Democrats.
Of late I have found myself breaking ranks with O'Reilly on an increasing number of issues, but I was floored that he would spout the common 'blame the oil companies' mantra that one hears from Democrats in Congress.
To get straight to the point, O'Reilly is FLAT WRONG about oil.
In order to 'fix' the problem of rising oil prices, O'Reilly would punish the oil companies, as if they are the ones responsible for the problem, which they aren't. He also came close to spouting the Obama claim that the oil companies are guilty of 'price gouging,' though he stopped just sort of saying that.
Once again, let's set the record straight, shall we?
Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 70 cents goes to purchase crude oil, most of which is imported from other countries. Crude is up by 100 dollars per barrel since 1998.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that most of the increases in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 10 years can be traced directly to the price of crude.
The big oil companies must purchase this crude, the price of which is set by the open market, OPEC, and investors/speculators.
Further, out of every dollar we spend at the pump, only about 3 cents goes to the big oil companies in profits.
But here is the biggie. Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 6.5 cents goes for federal taxes, and anywhere from 15 to 20 cents goes for state and local taxes, depending on the state/municipality in which one lives.
As you can see, this leaves very little profit margin for local gas stations.
Thus, if Mr. O'Reilly wishes to play the blame game, he is picking on the wrong ones. Government at the federal, state, and local levels makes 8 times what the oil companies make in profits. And as long as crude oil accounts for 70% of the price we pay at the pump, Americans will see very little relief until the price of crude comes down.
And instead of brow-beating the oil companies for doing what a corporation is supposed to do--make a profit for its stockholders--why not brow-beat government for raking in multi-billions of dollars in taxes on gasoline? Why isn't anyone talking about or reporting how much government profits from these high gasoline prices?
It's very simple. They don't want you to know.
I can tell you this, the next time you hear a specific number on oil company profits, just multiply that number by 7, and you will get a ballpark estimate of what government is raking in from gasoline prices.
Those are the simple facts regardless of any demagoguery from O'Reilly or the Democrats.
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.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Message to Congress: Halt Gasoline Taxes NOW!
As they usually do every few years, members of Congress hauled in the oil company executives on Tuesday for a trip to the woodshed, blaming them for everything from global warming to high gas prices to *gasp* actually making a good profit for shareholders.
I will not waste my time and energy on the imbecilic charges and inexplicable holier-than-thou display staged by Congressional Democrats.
Instead, let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?
Congress needs to place a moratorium on gasoline taxes at the pump. In addition, state and local governments need to follow suit. This will save the average American at least $24 bucks at the pump every time we fill up.
Government already makes windfall profits off of oil companies, raking in at least 7 times the profit margin of the oil companies on a gallon of gas.
In hard times one would think that the Party that likes to proclaim itself the 'friend of the little guy' and the 'Party that cares about the working people' would wish to repeal all taxes on gasoline, given the massive amount of money it would save average Americans.
The repeal would only need to be temporary until we can get ourselves back into some stability in the oil markets, which are totally out of the control of the oil companies themselves.
Democrats in Congress claim that the profits of the oil companies are 'obscene.' And what, pray tell, would we call the taxes the government collects from gasoline?
You see, Liberals believe that it is immoral for a business to make a profit for its owners/shareholders. But when government rakes in multi-billions of dollars in taxes from those 'obscene profits,' everything is perfectly fine.
This double-standard, frankly, is nauseating.
Thus, let the Demos in Congress put their money where their lying mouths are. If they are serious about helping 'the little guy' who needs a break from prices at the pump, then place a moratorium on all gasoline taxes.
This would mean that a normal fill-up that would cost you $60 bucks would then cost you only $36 bucks.
Do I believe this will happen? Only when pigs fly. Money-grubbing, sticky-fingered politicians of the Liberal type are more greedy than ANY oil company executive.
I will not waste my time and energy on the imbecilic charges and inexplicable holier-than-thou display staged by Congressional Democrats.
Instead, let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?
Congress needs to place a moratorium on gasoline taxes at the pump. In addition, state and local governments need to follow suit. This will save the average American at least $24 bucks at the pump every time we fill up.
Government already makes windfall profits off of oil companies, raking in at least 7 times the profit margin of the oil companies on a gallon of gas.
In hard times one would think that the Party that likes to proclaim itself the 'friend of the little guy' and the 'Party that cares about the working people' would wish to repeal all taxes on gasoline, given the massive amount of money it would save average Americans.
The repeal would only need to be temporary until we can get ourselves back into some stability in the oil markets, which are totally out of the control of the oil companies themselves.
Democrats in Congress claim that the profits of the oil companies are 'obscene.' And what, pray tell, would we call the taxes the government collects from gasoline?
You see, Liberals believe that it is immoral for a business to make a profit for its owners/shareholders. But when government rakes in multi-billions of dollars in taxes from those 'obscene profits,' everything is perfectly fine.
This double-standard, frankly, is nauseating.
Thus, let the Demos in Congress put their money where their lying mouths are. If they are serious about helping 'the little guy' who needs a break from prices at the pump, then place a moratorium on all gasoline taxes.
This would mean that a normal fill-up that would cost you $60 bucks would then cost you only $36 bucks.
Do I believe this will happen? Only when pigs fly. Money-grubbing, sticky-fingered politicians of the Liberal type are more greedy than ANY oil company executive.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Congressman Wants 50 Cents Per Gallon Tax Hike
U.S. House Representative John Dingell, D-Michigan, has proposed a 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase on every gallon of gas purchased.
As Americans are increasingly struggling with skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, Dingell would only add to their burden by socking them with a 50-cent increase in the already high rate of taxation the government slaps on gasoline.
Dingell and other liberals subscribe to the view that taxation should be used, in part, to change the behavior of Americans. Cigarette and alcohol taxes, for example, are supposed to discourage consumers from indulging, as if this is ANY business of government.
But in this case, what, exactly, is the massive tax increase on gasoline consumption meant to change, other than grounding drivers? What is their alternative? If the objective is to change behavior, then change it to WHAT? Sit at home rather than drive to work?
At present most Americans have no choice but to utilize the present system of transportation and the means of providing energy to that transportation. Americans love their autos, and at present we have no widespread system in place to provide any energy source except for gasoline.
Many if not most Americans now drive only enough to take care of the necessities of life, such as driving to work, to the grocery store, to church, and to the doctor.
What, exactly, are they going to do when ultra-liberals such as Dingell and most of his Democratic colleagues succeed in making travel by auto difficult if not impossible by pricing gasoline out of the reach of most working Americans?
It is not as if the government isn't already making huge profits off of gasoline. As we have indicated many times on the Liberty Sphere, Americans are already paying roughly 60-70 cents in taxes per gallon of gas (it is now higher than this since gas prices have increased and are taxed on a percentage basis). At this moment, even without the Dingell robbery scheme, the government collects at least 7 times the amount the oil companies make in profits on a gallon of gas.
If Dingell gets his way, many Americans (depending on the area of the country they live) will be paying a whopping $1.20 per gallon in taxes. That means if you have a vehicle that has a 20-gallon tank, when you fill up you will pay TWENTY-FOUR dollars in taxes alone...that's $24.00 per tank each time you fill up.
You will pay only eight dollars ($8.00) to profit the oil companies.
Thus, when you fill up with 20 gallons at a cost of $3.00 per gallon, you will pay a total of $60.00. Out of that 60 dollars you will pay 24 bucks in taxes. Out of that 60 dollars, 8 dollars will go to the oil companies.
Without the unreasonable taxes on gasoline, your bill at the pump for 20 gallons, even at 3 bucks per gallon would only be $36.00--THIRTY-SIX BUCKS for a full tank of gas at the 'whopping' price of 3 dollars per gallon.
Thus, my friends, if there were ever any doubt as to who is the real culprit that places such burdens on the backs of citizens, look no further than your government.
As Americans are increasingly struggling with skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, Dingell would only add to their burden by socking them with a 50-cent increase in the already high rate of taxation the government slaps on gasoline.
Dingell and other liberals subscribe to the view that taxation should be used, in part, to change the behavior of Americans. Cigarette and alcohol taxes, for example, are supposed to discourage consumers from indulging, as if this is ANY business of government.
But in this case, what, exactly, is the massive tax increase on gasoline consumption meant to change, other than grounding drivers? What is their alternative? If the objective is to change behavior, then change it to WHAT? Sit at home rather than drive to work?
At present most Americans have no choice but to utilize the present system of transportation and the means of providing energy to that transportation. Americans love their autos, and at present we have no widespread system in place to provide any energy source except for gasoline.
Many if not most Americans now drive only enough to take care of the necessities of life, such as driving to work, to the grocery store, to church, and to the doctor.
What, exactly, are they going to do when ultra-liberals such as Dingell and most of his Democratic colleagues succeed in making travel by auto difficult if not impossible by pricing gasoline out of the reach of most working Americans?
It is not as if the government isn't already making huge profits off of gasoline. As we have indicated many times on the Liberty Sphere, Americans are already paying roughly 60-70 cents in taxes per gallon of gas (it is now higher than this since gas prices have increased and are taxed on a percentage basis). At this moment, even without the Dingell robbery scheme, the government collects at least 7 times the amount the oil companies make in profits on a gallon of gas.
If Dingell gets his way, many Americans (depending on the area of the country they live) will be paying a whopping $1.20 per gallon in taxes. That means if you have a vehicle that has a 20-gallon tank, when you fill up you will pay TWENTY-FOUR dollars in taxes alone...that's $24.00 per tank each time you fill up.
You will pay only eight dollars ($8.00) to profit the oil companies.
Thus, when you fill up with 20 gallons at a cost of $3.00 per gallon, you will pay a total of $60.00. Out of that 60 dollars you will pay 24 bucks in taxes. Out of that 60 dollars, 8 dollars will go to the oil companies.
Without the unreasonable taxes on gasoline, your bill at the pump for 20 gallons, even at 3 bucks per gallon would only be $36.00--THIRTY-SIX BUCKS for a full tank of gas at the 'whopping' price of 3 dollars per gallon.
Thus, my friends, if there were ever any doubt as to who is the real culprit that places such burdens on the backs of citizens, look no further than your government.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
McCain Castigates Colleagues for Criticizing Hillary
John McCain went out of his way to castigate his Republican colleagues for their criticism of Hillary Clinton. In fact, McCain's words cannot be construed in any other way than outright praise for Bill's wife.
There are many, many reasons as to why John McCain should not be the Republican nominee for President. We do not need to use his praise of Hillary to make that point.
But McCain's words concerning Hillary are an important indication of the mindset of the man.
Hillary's long history of advocating for government-sponsored programs for everything under the sun, including socialized medicine, are well-known. Further, in her book, 'It Takes a Village,' Hillary makes it clear that in her world-view the 'village' is actually the collectivist state that is charged with the ultimate power to raise children, rather than their parents.
One quote from the book makes this point clear: 'There is no such thing as other people's children.'
In addition, Hillary has made no attempt to hide her disdain for American free enterprise, claiming that government should confiscate profits in order to build up a centralized fund for research into alternative fuels.
What, exactly, constitutes too much profit for a corporation that must provide a satisfactory return on the investments by its stockholders?
Take the oil companies, for example. Is a profit of ten cents per gallon too much? What about eighteen cents? Would a profit of fifty cents per gallon be too much?
The big oil companies make a profit of just 13 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. Yet the federal government takes 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes. Add to that local and state taxes, and in California, for example, drivers pay 58.6 cents per gallon in federal and state taxes, and another 8.2% of the purchase price for local taxes in cities such as San Francisco.
When one considers the amount of taxes assessed on gasoline by local, state, and federal governments, the profits of the oil companies pale in comparison.
Yet Hillary and other Democrats are known for condemning the oil companies for their profits while at the same time calling for more taxes on gasoline.
It goes without saying that Hillary is also known for supporting gun control, flip flopping on the War in Iraq, castigating her Democratic opponent Barack Obama for suggesting he would open talks with America's enemies although Hillary herself proposed the exact same thing several months back.
In spite of all of this, John McCain comes to Hillary's defense when his Republican colleagues dare question her record and stance on the issues.
Given McCain's mounting woes within the Republican Party, are his words of support for Hillary an indication, a signal, that perhaps there is a major switch in the making--a deal offered by Hillary that if McCain switches to the Democratic Party she will offer him the role of her running mate in 2008?
We do know that McCain and Hillary are drinking buddies. On a joint trip overseas with a Senate delegation several years back, the two engaged in a dual to see who could drink the most alcohol.
The rumor was that she drank him under the table.
But the point is, the two are good friends, and apparently McCain views Hillary as an ideological ally.
There are many, many reasons as to why John McCain should not be the Republican nominee for President. We do not need to use his praise of Hillary to make that point.
But McCain's words concerning Hillary are an important indication of the mindset of the man.
Hillary's long history of advocating for government-sponsored programs for everything under the sun, including socialized medicine, are well-known. Further, in her book, 'It Takes a Village,' Hillary makes it clear that in her world-view the 'village' is actually the collectivist state that is charged with the ultimate power to raise children, rather than their parents.
One quote from the book makes this point clear: 'There is no such thing as other people's children.'
In addition, Hillary has made no attempt to hide her disdain for American free enterprise, claiming that government should confiscate profits in order to build up a centralized fund for research into alternative fuels.
What, exactly, constitutes too much profit for a corporation that must provide a satisfactory return on the investments by its stockholders?
Take the oil companies, for example. Is a profit of ten cents per gallon too much? What about eighteen cents? Would a profit of fifty cents per gallon be too much?
The big oil companies make a profit of just 13 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. Yet the federal government takes 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes. Add to that local and state taxes, and in California, for example, drivers pay 58.6 cents per gallon in federal and state taxes, and another 8.2% of the purchase price for local taxes in cities such as San Francisco.
When one considers the amount of taxes assessed on gasoline by local, state, and federal governments, the profits of the oil companies pale in comparison.
Yet Hillary and other Democrats are known for condemning the oil companies for their profits while at the same time calling for more taxes on gasoline.
It goes without saying that Hillary is also known for supporting gun control, flip flopping on the War in Iraq, castigating her Democratic opponent Barack Obama for suggesting he would open talks with America's enemies although Hillary herself proposed the exact same thing several months back.
In spite of all of this, John McCain comes to Hillary's defense when his Republican colleagues dare question her record and stance on the issues.
Given McCain's mounting woes within the Republican Party, are his words of support for Hillary an indication, a signal, that perhaps there is a major switch in the making--a deal offered by Hillary that if McCain switches to the Democratic Party she will offer him the role of her running mate in 2008?
We do know that McCain and Hillary are drinking buddies. On a joint trip overseas with a Senate delegation several years back, the two engaged in a dual to see who could drink the most alcohol.
The rumor was that she drank him under the table.
But the point is, the two are good friends, and apparently McCain views Hillary as an ideological ally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)