Posted on 10/28/2005 3:21:21 PM PDT by Crackingham
I suggest if the fuel wasn't "free" she would set the thermostat on 68 or 70 degrees and wear a sweater and socks.
How is that a windfall? His five dollar Powerball ticket that returned $853,000 is a windfall. But 10%? There are many businesses where a unit that's only returning 10% gets it's managers fired and the unit sold because 10% is the long term average return on stocks and investors expect more than that base level from active businesses.
Time for a little TR style trust busting. We can start with separating Exxon from Mobil.
He had one of the tickets that had the first group of five numbers but not the separate powerball number (second prize). Normally that's a $200,000 prize. But since the overall jackpot had reached $300 million, the Powerball lottery was increasing the second prize pot also.
I doubt most oil companies want to build new refineries, at least not in the US.
It's too high a risk to invest gazillions in new refineries when you have ever moving targets with environmental compliance and the always-looming spector of price and profit controls. Maybe they can build new refineries in Mexico...
So the government endorses the NRDC's radical agenda and makes it impossible for oil and gas companies to drill and refine in the United States. Then when supply is strained because we have to import all our oil, they want to slap a tax on the companies that asked to produce more in the first place. Only in Washington does tghis kind of logic make any sense at all.
"But since the overall jackpot had reached $300 million, the Powerball lottery was increasing the second prize pot also."
OK, so I heard correctly, but not being in a state with a lottery, I just didn't understand how the jackpot was distributed.
Ping.
What the $%^&*(@
Buy me a new monitor, while your at it.
Who is John Galt?
>I have an Aunt who get heat subsidies and when you go to her
>house, it is 80 degrees in there. So hot I can't stand it.
>I suggest if the fuel wasn't "free" she would set the
>thermostat on 68 or 70 degrees and wear a sweater and
>socks.
Well I would agree that's clearly wrong too. I've been thinking about that on and off for a few weeks. How can we support people so that they can get enough heating (I don't know say 60 or 65 degreees) but not abuse the system. Given that temperature control is on the consumer's end its not easy to sort out. Best I could come up with would be either:
1) Percentage support: government (or other supporting organization) offers to cover some percentage of the bill (say 50%)
or
2) Flat support: government (or other supporting organization) offers to cover say 100 dollars a month of the bill. Any more the consumer covers.
Both would provide incentive not to do the 80 degree thing but don't solve the issue of what to do if the consumer can't pay up their fair share.
If you believe oil companies have real control of oil prices, explain 1998-99 oil prices and what has changed since then. It really is supply and demand.
Here in Alaska the state has a nice little wealth re-distribution program called "Rural Power Cost Equalization" whereby the urban residents subsidize the power (heating) costs for the bush communities. Just a little tax automatically added to your electric bill every month and nobody freezes.
How do they avoid the problem of potential abuse in the system- i.e. setting the thermostat to 80 degrees as mentioned by cfrels above?
Well, why not? They already decide how much of "your" salary you get to keep each week. Of course, they hope you don't realize if the control how much you get to keep then you're nothing more than a serf.
No, he was a winner in the drawing but only got a 2 prize ticket, which came to $800,000. I did hear (although second handed, so take it with a grain of salt) that he was donating it to charity. Still doesn't excuse advocating this tripe, though.
You're thinking of it backwards.....this isn't the pandering part. This is the parth where they show their true colors. He's 5 years out from an election....so he doesn't have to actually start acting conservative until a year or two before the election.
This wealth-redistribution program is specifically a U.N. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development project, cycle 13 (the current one) which we signed onto under Bush, Sr., implemented under Clinton, and confirmed in 2002. BTW, coming to your anytown soon is cycle 14 with institutional overlay (IO) zoning.
Oil/gas prices have already dropped to levels equal to or lesser than they were before Katrina. I live in Western MA. Tomorrow I'm going to tank up for 2.39/gal. The night before Katrina, the price was 2.44/gal. Heating oil is currently $2.25/gal.
WMECO, our local electric company, has something called the 'Good Neighbor Energy Fund': http://www.wmeco.com/community/partners/goodneighbor.asp
Customers like me voluntarily pay $1 extra on their monthly bill and it goes to the fund.
Voluntarily, gee I like the sound of that word! I could never think of mandating a tax on other people just to relieve my own guilty conscience.
Not intending to flame you NYorker. But that kind of tax talk always hits a hot button with me. There must be programs similar to WMECO's in Houston and elsewhere. Try a Google search for 'energy assistance programs', etc.
There are all kinds of low-income energy assistance programs already in place, have been for years. People just need to know where to look: http://www.liheap.ncat.org/
I'm opposed to taxing the oil companies (I'm opposed to any new taxes, period!) because I know that the oil companies will pass that cost right back to consumers like me. This notion of trying to 'stick it' to the oil companies is what got us into this mess in the first place. Every time you think you're 'sticking it' to the big guy, you're really 'sticking it' to yourself! Fortunately for the Ted Kennedys and the Robert Byrds of the world, many Americans will never figure that out. They can't see past their own class envy.
Earlier today, on another FR 'oil' thread, I read that the profit margin for the oil companies is about 10 percent, compared to a 70 percent profit margin for Viacom! (Only 4 percent for Wal-Mart!) Profit should not be treated as a sin! But if you must, go after Viacom and their ilk first, okay?
subsides = subsidies
Not by the way they spend money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.