Take profits from the oil compnaies to fund a reserve?

[SUBMAN1]

Hillary just gets better. She is purely socialist minded. The only reason these oil companies ae out drilling right now for new caches of oil is the fact that they are well funded. They are not stupid and know that their good fortunes won't last forever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

-S

[Yahoshua]

Excellent idea!!

What a great way to drive U.S. companies out of the U.S. and out to some other country where they won't be bothered by such moronic idealism. Thereby contributing to our unemployment problem along witht he shortage of jobs available for skilled workers, who will most likely leave the country to find work elsewhere further depleting our workforce.

Bravo.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif

[Gorduz]

Actually I see no problems with this. In Norway oil companies pay 80-90% tax on their profit, and still its no problem getting investors to oil projects. Most of this money is actually not used, but put on a investment fund.

The Norwegian Oil fund(by now it's value is about half that of GE) is actually groowing so big that we don't know what to do with it, but thats another story.

It works fine over here, and perhaps we can have something to live of when our oil resources are depleted

[Skybird]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too.

[Oberon]

Sounds like a plan, I mean, what are the big oil companies going to do when they run out of oil? I mean, I know if there's a new fuel to replace oil then they'll be made redundant...BUT if they start thinking ahead now, then they'll be in a good position to diversify into a new fuel source when the time comes.

As Skybird put in the 'Iran hostages' thread...it's all a case of thinking ahead.

Plus, if we can wean ourselves off oil, then that'll really screw up the people using it as a weapon against us. :up:

[bradclark1]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too.
If you aren't Republican you are a socialist or communist! Ask any Republican.

[Skybird]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too.
If you aren't Republican you are a socialist or communist! Ask any Republican.
That sounds logical to me! :doh: :lol:

Can't help but to link this (German) essay on comparing the EU and the US and how differently the EU is perceived by the three major opinion camps in the US:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,473460,00.html

Possible that the text maybe will be translated into English for the international edition of Der Spiegel in one or two weeks - who knows.

[tycho102]

She's interested in political power and job security, just like every other politician. Every govenment project and agency that is formed gives her and her buddies some kind of direct control.

If Hillbilly is going to communistize money from the oil companies, I'd rather see it go straight into nuclear power plants and core reprocessing factories. Tax the oil companies, sure, but use the taxes for to the benefit of Americans -- instead of using it to garner kickbacks which she subsequently hides in an offshore shell-corporation.

[SUBMAN1]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too.
If you aren't Republican you are a socialist or communist! Ask any Republican.

Incorrect. THere is a clear difference between democrat and socialism/communism. I don't agree with everything the republicans do, whicyh is why I like Democrats around to offset that balance. However, more and more democrats are having Communistic views and that troubles me deeply, so much so now, that I think I will never vote democrat again.

If you study the last few major elections, you will notice more Republicans coming out of the woodwork. They largly ignored the last Senate races, but for President, I think you will see quite a few popping up again. I am not the only one feeling this way.

Right now, I think there is a world wide Communist agenda, and we are all slowly sucoming to it. In a country that was founded on less government control, you are seeing more and more government intervention than ever too. Your rights as a citizen are slowly erroding as well. Soon, you will even have international courts deciding on your fate as well, instead of being judged at home by your peers.

Things are getting ugly.

-S

[Tchocky]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too. If you aren't Republican you are a socialist or communist! Ask any Republican.Yeah, and if you're not a Democrat you're a redneck...

I don't see the point in looking at this through a "is it Socialist/Communist?" filter, it makes no sense. Is it a good idea? I say yes, given that it's running out.
If it happens to be a socialist idea, so be it. Who gives a crap if a good idea belongs to a disagreeable school of thought? Take the idea, and f*ck the ideology.

[waste gate]

I don't know if this has been pointed out but the US (and every major industrial nation) has a strategic oil reserve. Much of the current cost and shortages, when they occur, has to do with the lack of refinery capacity. Be the lack of capacity be due to different fuel blends or lack of refinery construction it is not the fault, nor is it the resposibility of any oil company to compensate for political decisions.

[Rockstar]

This constant phobia of mis-defined conceptions of what "socialism" is start to become a bit annoying. Not to mention that "social" and "socialistic" constantly get mixed up, too.

I agree, maybe the real threat is what is known in political science lingo as "Statism". Statism
is where the state (and most importantly those who control the state, it's governing bodies, it's
economy, and those who control access to these) attempt to implement state programs and
policies that remove from individuals their control over their lives. This wresting of control
comes in a variety of guises, from taxation for social programs, to gun control designed to take
away the ability of a people to resist these changes. Statism is enacted gradually, statists claim
it based on need, but in reality they like it gradually so that citizens lose their independence
slowly, and may not be cognizant of how much they are losing. Statism is not a left or right
thing, there are right wing statists (fascists etc.) and left wing (Communists & socialists), it's a
CONTROL thing! I have read with some interest the varying points both left and right here for
several months, but the one thing that threatens all of us (Neo liberal, classic liberal, neo
conservative or classic conservative) is statism, and it's nothing new! The reason the founders
included the checks and balances (many of which we no longer follow, unfortunately) and the
Bill of Rights was to avoid the State becoming the dominant force rather than the people.

[bradclark1]

I don't know if this has been pointed out but the US (and every major industrial nation) has a strategic oil reserve. Much of the current cost and shortages, when they occur, has to do with the lack of refinery capacity. Be the lack of capacity be due to different fuel blends or lack of refinery construction it is not the fault, nor is it the resposibility of any oil company to compensate for political decisions.
You can't say that when the worlds economy is driven by oil. Like it or not oil is politics.
It cost's fifteen billion dollars and something like twelve years to make a refinery. Why would oil companies build a refinery when the way things are they get the most money by keeping the capacity they have and plead supply and demand.

[waste gate]

I don't know if this has been pointed out but the US (and every major industrial nation) has a strategic oil reserve. Much of the current cost and shortages, when they occur, has to do with the lack of refinery capacity. Be the lack of capacity be due to different fuel blends or lack of refinery construction it is not the fault, nor is it the resposibility of any oil company to compensate for political decisions.
You can't say that when the worlds economy is driven by oil. Like it or not oil is politics.
It cost's fifteen billion dollars and something like twelve years to make a refinery. Why would oil companies build a refinery when the way things are they get the most money by keeping the capacity they have and plead supply and demand.

I think, although I don't know for sure, you forget about the enviromentalists who have dictated the current situation, and want to do so in the future.
My feeling is that you can blame the enviromentalists and warming alarmists for much of the cost increases.

Oil Companies are much too conservative to bring on internal changes. If you think you are paying too much or that there is a shortage of oil blame the politicians.
Oil companies move based on profit. Fifteen billion dollars would be two billion if it were not for the 'not in my neighborhood croud and the 'enviromentalist' occupied EPA.