Obama Gives Energy Speech in Lansing, MI

[Duckus]

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Here is the link to his plan, if anyone is actually interested in reading it. There are parts I agree with in there, and there are parts I disagree with in there.

[PeterMP]

I am assuming you are talking Obama. Obama was against the first stimulus check on the basis that it included too many people. He wanted to focus the stimulus check on the lower/lower middle classes. These people in theory would invest more back into the economy then people who can afford to just put it in the bank. So he proposed a different plan. Here is a good article on the plan and the ratings for the proposed plans.

Apples and oranges in terms of what passed. Those, I think, were more long term economic plans vs. what everybody acknowledges is a AT BEST a short term affect of sending people checks.

Some looking show that Hillary and Obama showed up to vote for a more extensive plan that included other things.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/senate-stimulus-bill-fails-by-one-vote.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/congress.economy/index.html

McCain didn't vote on the first one.

McCain showed up to vote for the one that ended up passing. Obama and Hillary didn't, but it passed 81-16.

Generally, it appears that Obama was for the stimulus check idea and also supported more extensive "rebates". I don't see where he has strongly come out against what passed and he certainly didn't vote against it so I think it is most likely he wasn't against and just skipped the vote to campaign knowing it would pass easily w/o him.

[Ellis]

Next, we should punish pharmaceuticals. They're evil.

And we should also punish the automakers. Not the American ones... the Japanese and European companies that build plants over here. We should make them pay extra, and we should give that money to everyone who votes for me.

Oh, don't forget Apple computer. They make entirely too much money, and having an iPod/iPhone is a right that I have. After all, they posted $1billion in profits for just the 1st quarter of last year. That's waaaaay too much money. Where do they get off? They need some good old fashioned humbling, and I think Obama is the guy to do it. I should get part of that money.

LOL!

Those auto plants created jobs for americans.

[PeterMP]

First off the gas tax holiday is a joke that really serves no benefit other then reduced tax dollars for the government. I havent heard one economist who thought that was a good idea. Obama's plan to use the SPR to lower gas prices and fund the rebate at least has some merit. He plans to sell light crude to be replaced with dirty or sour crude (which takes longer to refine) and using the differences in price to fund the energy rebate. This wouldnt really affect the emergency reserves negatively we just wouldnt be able to access some of it immediately. I am still not a big fan of this as it really doesnt address the problem but it is light years ahead of gas tax holidays and would have an effect on the price of gasoline.

No.

The selling of the SPR is not to fund the rebate.

The selling of the SPR is to try and increase supply to the extent that it would drop prices.

LATER (so it would affect the levels of the SPR until later occurred, which it isn't clear to me when later is), he's going to replace it w/ heavy crude.

Why replace with heavy crude isn't clear to me.

From the Duckus link:

"Barack Obama will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record‐breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple."

"With the goal of bringing down prices at the pump, he supports releasing light oil from the SPR now and replacing it later with heavier crude more suited to our long‐term needs."

[PokerPacker]

About 15 min into the speech, he said we can't drill out of the problem, but that we need to give every American a $1000 energy tax rebate for by the profits of oil companies.

:doh: Give people more money to buy with and prices will increase accordingly, not to mention this transparent attempt at redistribution of wealth.

[Predicto]

The faux outrage in this thread is hysterical.

After all the venting is done, we can discuss the merits of the various energy plans.

I myself am not a fan of Obama's stimulus proposal, but I do like the fact that he actually tries to pay for extra spending when he proposes it and that he is willing to compromise on these issues to actually get something done.

[Thiebear]

We should just give 10,000 to everyone that makes less than 20k a year.

We should just give 50,000 to families of 4 that make less than 40k.

Take it from me, i deserve it for voting for your dumb asses.

Again: don't take into account someone in Arkansas making 40k is the same as someone in NY making 80k...

[zoony]

The faux outrage in this thread is hysterical.

After all the venting is done, we can discuss the merits of the various energy plans.

I myself am not a fan of Obama's stimulus proposal, but I do like the fact that he actually tries to pay for extra spending when he proposes it and that he is willing to compromise on these issues to actually get something done.

Nothing faux about it imo. Absolutely disgusting.

You're a lawyer, so I'm sure you're familiar with precedent. What would it be for something like this?

[Hubbs]

Hey Washington, here's an idea:

STOP COMING UP WITH PLANS THAT CALL FOR EVEN MORE SPENDING.

...I think I need a Prozac prescription.

[Predicto]

Nothing faux about it imo. Absolutely disgusting.

You're a lawyer, so I'm sure you're familiar with precedent. What would it be for something like this?

The precedent?

I dunno - the "rebate check" that GWB handed out a few years ago, or the stimulous check that we all just got a month ago?

ps - I thought they were a bad idea too.

[zoony]

The precedent?

I dunno - the "rebate check" that GWB handed out a few years ago, or the stimulous check that we all just got a month ago?

ps - I thought they were a bad idea too.

Speaking about what precedent this would set going forward.

Arbitrarily taxing windfall profits in whatever direction the political winds are blowing.

If you can't see the threat to the very foundation of this nation's prosperity, you're not thinking about it hard enough.

....

[Thiebear]

Asked if Congress will produce a comprehensive energy bill in September before Congress adjourns again for elections, Rahall replied, “This year? No.”

Instead, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources believes Democrats are all about 2009.

“We’ve laid the groundwork this year,” Rahall said.

Democratic House aides say the energy agenda has been carefully gamed out in strategy sessions, and Pelosi always intended to take heat on gas prices while tacitly encouraging more vulnerable Democrats to publicly disagree with her and show their independence.

Freshman Democrats like Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Don Cazayoux of Louisiana have taken her up on the offer.

Altmire has said a drilling vote “will happen,” while Cazayoux, hoping to hang on to his seat in a conservative Baton Rouge-area district, on Friday sent a letter to Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) demanding a vote on more domestic oil exploration.

“There will be a vote,” said Altmire, who faces a rematch with former GOP Rep. Melissa Hart this fall in the Pittsburgh suburbs.

Its already been planned out ahead of time.. Its just a big show.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

gaaaaaaaah.

[Predicto]

Speaking about what precedent this would set going forward.

Arbitrarily taxing windfall profits in whatever direction the political winds are blowing.

If you can't see the threat to the very foundation of this nation's prosperity, you're not thinking about it hard enough.

....

Perhaps. Is this really "arbitrary?"

I see an cartelized industry that gets massive tax breaks already, while making record profits, and I wonder if the situation is not just a little bit off to begin with.

I myself think that it is silly that we act as though oil is a competitive market for a fungible product, rather than treating it like electricity or water utilities.

[twa]

Speaking about what precedent this would set going forward.

Arbitrarily taxing windfall profits in whatever direction the political winds are blowing.

If you can't see the threat to the very foundation of this nation's prosperity, you're not thinking about it hard enough.

....

Let's not be too hasty

A windfall profits tax on lawyers to pay increased insurance costs has some merit....or as least as much as the oil one.

[zoony]

Perhaps. Is this really "arbitrary?"

I see an cartelized industry that gets massive tax breaks already, while making record profits, and I wonder if the situation is not just a little bit off to begin with.

I myself think that it is silly that we act as though oil is a competitive market for a fungible product, rather than treating it like electricity or water utilities.

Sounds like the path of good intentions to me. You'd better bet that corporate America is going to stand up and take note.

I can tell you one thing... countries like Dubai and China and India are keeping their fingers crossed that the US would be dumb enough to step on their own :censored:

Because they're going to enjoy the benefits of some rather large and prosperous companies headquartered in their nation very quickly.

[zoony]

Let's not be too hasty

A windfall profits tax on lawyers to pay increased insurance costs has some merit....or as least as much as the oil one.

Like I said, we should also tax Apple computer. The margin on the iPhone is unreasonable, and they are outsourcing jobs to China.

They make waaaay too much money off of the backs of Americans. Time for Apple to pay the piper.

[ccsl2]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes

Here is a pretty good breakdown of the Obama Energy Plan. If it was posted before, my apologies.

[Predicto]

Sounds like the path of good intentions to me. You'd better bet that corporate America is going to stand up and take note.

I can tell you one thing... countries like Dubai and China and India are keeping their fingers crossed that the US would be dumb enough to step on their own :censored:

Because they're going to enjoy the benefits of some rather large and prosperous companies headquartered in their nation very quickly.

Whatever you say. Seems like a kind of unique situation to me.

You didn't say anything about the massive tax breaks that the oil companies are already getting, the tax breaks that are fueling some of these record profits. Would taking those tax breaks away be arbitrary punishment too?

[zoony]

You didn't say anything about the massive tax breaks that the oil companies are already getting, the tax breaks that are fueling some of these record profits. Would taking those tax breaks away be arbitrary punishment too?

That's a different thing entirely. If that is what Obama is for, then he should say so. And we should get all the facts on the table.

[twa]

Whatever you say. Seems like a kind of unique situation to me.

You didn't say anything about the massive tax breaks that the oil companies are already getting, the tax breaks that are fueling some of these record profits. Would taking those tax breaks away be arbitrary punishment too?

Have you really looked at those tax breaks?

Most everyone I see is to promote the vast investment risk needed to supply our energy needs.

But I would welcome examples I might be overlooking.

[Predicto]

Have you really looked at those tax breaks?

Most everyone I see is to promote the vast investment risk needed to supply our energy needs.

But I would welcome examples I might be overlooking.

Yet somehow, the money does not appear to be going into taking those vast investment risks. It is going into my pocket as a shareholder of Exxon. :whoknows:

[twa]

Yet somehow, the money does not appear to be going into taking those vast investment risks. It is going into my pocket as a shareholder of Exxon. :whoknows:

Examples of tax breaks you object to?

The tax breaks for deepwater exploration and for boosting declining wells have certainly been responsible for billions invested.....and a damn good thing too,since you *******s want to sit on your oil and watch it seep out naturally;)

[Predicto]

Examples of tax breaks you object to?

The tax breaks for deepwater exploration and for boosting declining wells have certainly been responsible for billions invested.....

Not according to the Department of the Interior's own internal reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/washington/22royalty.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1217959605-ziyVpsAgrKKws3eeDOY6Ug

I in particular object to the way that the oil industry may "write down" depreciation on equipment in a way different than any other industry.

[willmb5]

Not according to the Department of the Interior's own internal reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/washington/22royalty.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1217959605-ziyVpsAgrKKws3eeDOY6Ug

I in particular object to the way that the oil industry may "write down" depreciation on equipment in a way different than any other industry.

It will not let me view that article, but if the problem is in the accounting procedures, then wouldn't it be the fault of the regulatory agencies? Aren't there things called "audits" to prevent shady accounting procedures. After what happened a few years back with the WorldComs of the world, I doubt a huge company like ExxonMobil would be dumb enough to try illegal accounting procedures. They are a corporate business. They are going to try to make as much money as possible while still following FASB accounting principles. It's their right to do so, so any problem with the way they depreciate their equipment would be squarely on the shoulders of the SEC or other regulatory agencies. Obviously they have a responsibilty to certain accounting principles like conservatism, matching principles, and consistency, but accounting isn't a black and white issue (and nothing in life is).

Anyways, maybe it would help if you gave a few main points from that article because I can't view it, and I'm way too lazy to sign up for the NYTimes online.