A blog about Politics.
About ChicoEsquela


Real Name:
Chico Esquela
Address:
23543 Avenue 56, Ducor, CA
Biggest Butler Bldg=>TeePee
Ducor, CA 93218
Cell:
(esc)uch-enes
Date of Birth:
December 14, 1945
Member Since:
July 31, 2007
Last Signed In:
September 04, 2008
Profile Views:
2404
Blog Views:
20375
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Gustavo -- Is God telling us to ignore the Republican Convention?
Could it be a woman will show us the way?
Vets for Freedom Ad -- One of the best I've seen.......
Who will McCain choose?
I just watched the Obama-McCain Saddleback Forum and.........
The Obamasiuhhhh........... 10 reasons not to vote for him......
It really IS as simple as THIS...............
Swimming & Drooling............ You Gotta LOVE This Dog!
Obama Will Revive Redistributionism.................
Did Anyone see the Asteroid reported on KCAL9?
Archives
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08

http://www.sounddogs.com/pr... 

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


ChicoEsquela - > MOO! -> Next time You hear Scott Cox or others rail about Oil Co. Tax Breaks.....
Next time You hear Scott Cox or others rail about Oil Co. Tax Breaks.....

.....then at least try and understand what created them in the first place......

Tax Breaks for Oil Companies

The Chicago Sun Times is not happy about welfare payments to oil companies:

Now's a curious time to be dishing out oil welfare, Editorial, Chicago Sun Times: The U.S. government over the next five years will give a windfall of $7 billion to oil companies -- yes, the same oil companies that reported record profits last year. But wait, it gets worse: If one oil company that is suing the government succeeds, that windfall could hit nearly $35 billion. Oh, and one more thing: There appears to be little anyone can do about it. Think about that the next time you pay a small fortune to fill your tank.

There is nothing illegal about the program... In fact, some folks might argue its goals were laudable 10 years ago, when the federal government with bipartisan support tried to encourage oil companies to drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico by promising to forgo the normal 12 percent or 16 percent royalty payments on leases there. Oil and gas prices were relatively low at the time, and it was deemed too financially risky for oil companies to invest in deep water drilling without the incentive. But isn't taking risks in hopes of gaining future profits what the market is all about? This was a bad idea from the start. ...

Many companies stopped claiming relief when oil and gas prices rose above certain trigger points built into the leases -- about $35 per barrel for oil. But those price triggers were waived in leases signed in 1998 and 1999 because companies still weren't investing ... and those leases will account for most of the $7 billion windfall. And several companies are challenging whether the Interior Department had the authority to include those price triggers in the first place. ...

While some lawmakers said they will try to undo the terms of leases that are in some cases 10 years old, they will probably fail. ... While we don't favor a new tax on the oil companies' record profits, those firms aren't doing themselves any favors by refusing to pay royalties while they're rolling in the dough. They might find it hard to win incentives the next time their industry is in a slump. We can hope so. The oil industry can make plenty of money without the benefit of corporate welfare.

I don't know much about the challenges to the price triggers, but on the $7 billion I am not quite as shrill. This isn't what I think of as welfare, this was an attempt to use incentives to encourage more investment by oil companies. The debate on whether incentives should be offered in the first place aside, if profits are dangled in front of firms as an incentive to encourage investment or other behavior, then it undermines the policy the next time you try to use it if you take the profits away from the firms that act on the incentive because they are excessive by some definition. If excess profits are a worry, then write the policy to cap or limit profits up front (or in this case leave them in place) so that firms know the true reward for investment, don't take the profits away or use the profits as political weapons after the fact

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by ChicoEsquela on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 07:27 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 116 times
19 comments from 9 users

1

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 07:31 AM

We have a 2,200 lb. old Belgian draft horse tht's been pullin our wagon for some time now.... Price of feed has gone way up so he's been costin us more and more ta feed......

The Democrats want to feed him less (take away  "tax breaks", and even start whippin him more (WPT)......

Yep....... that'll solve the problem..... Lets just whip ol Dratie more.......

After all..... its the Democratick way......

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 07:41 AM

Let's not concentrate on feedin ol Draftie more (drilling outer Continental Shelf {let China and others just do it} ), Drill ANWR, exploit oil sands and shale right here in CONUS, etc..........

Lets feed him even less...... and then get out the whips (Windfall Profits Tax) and pound him into dust....

That'll help..... After all its the Democrat way.... IOW do what is popular, easy,  "green", and appeals to the average pinhead who doesn't even know what tax carry forwards are and what created them......

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 08:38 AM

 

Distallates (Diesel, etc. are an even better indicator of economic effectations than is gasoline. If you hear someone wailing about profit margins on that bbl of crude, one of the first things to ask is if the Relative Sales Value Method or BTU Value Method or what other method was utilized to apportion the initial cost of the bbl of crude vs. the costs of producing the end product and what it sold for to get at a true profit margin.

If you do all this, you will have a whole world open up for you as to the  "end of the business" that is truly profitable (this would be E&P side and has been mostly taken away from us) and trust me, it ain't what the populist know nothing Decmocrats are spouting...... therein the rub......... if something is difficult to understand...... just make it easy and the pinhead populace can grasp it much easier......

And they do it every day  (appeal to the know nothings -- many of whom Google and Snopes and rest assured that they indeed  "know it all"  -- THEY DON'T!

posted by RoyTullis on Jun 10, 2008 at 09:35 AM

Good post Chico.  But making it simple will still not reach the pin heads. Their minds are made up.  Don't confuse them with facts.


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 10, 2008 at 09:43 AM

2.6% for Coke and nothing for Pepsi.

posted by Charlie on Jun 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Just one small correction. Jet fuel and kerosene are one and the same.  Jet fuel is just kerosene that is highly filtered to remove all water and with drying and anti icing  agents blended in.

posted by randomfactor on Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM

That's down in "miscellaneous," Frankie.

posted by refiguy on Jun 10, 2008 at 10:54 AM

 

but as I say with my pepsi or bottled water in my hand, cigarette, hair extensions, long finger nails, tanning salon skin, SUV's how am I suppose to feed my overweight family McDonald's 3 times a week...hold on its the cable company calling me on my cell phone.....I will complain about gas prices and the big bad oil companies later......what time did you say my tattoo appt was ?????

posted by Tiffanilynn on Jun 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM

breathe refiguy... just breathe... lol

i have my nails done, and i dye my hair every few months, and i still complain about gas prices. but see the difference is, my nails and hair cost the same everytime, and gas.... well it goes up 6 cents a day or more.... pretty soon i wont be able to afford my nails and nicley highlighted hair because gas is going to wipe me clean....

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Yep re-fi --  we are talking to the crowd who bitch about the price of gasoline per gallon -- then leave their car idling whist they run inside to pay what equates to $13 to $18 per gallon for something that is free (water).........)

They pay hundreds for tattoos and other ugliness enhancement accoutrement's as well.

 

 

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Why Bottled Water is a Huge Rip Off

  By msands, published May 22, 2007 Published Content: 158  Total Views: 92,210  Favorited By: 4 CPs Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites     Rating: 2.3 of 5   Bottled water is the biggest rip off in America. Once again for emphasis-bottled water is the biggest rip off in America. The high cost of bottled water does not make it better than tap water, especially when considering that bottled water is not really healthier or better than regular tap water in any way.

First of all, we complain about the rising gas prices, but per gallon, we are paying much more for water. Bottled water costs up to $10 per gallon. Can you say rip off? A five year supply of bottled water costs over $1000, while a five year supply of tap water costs less than $2. What would you do with an extra $1000 every five years? I know that I wouldn't be purchasing a five year supply of water.

And did you know that the water that you are paying more than gas for, may not be as special as you think. 25% of bottled water is actually tap water that has been purified or has had minerals added to it. One of the biggest water brands in the United States, Aquafina, bottles their water in Fresno, California, just a few hours from my home. Their water is purified water, not natural spring water. So, if I buy a bottle of Aquafina, I am buying virtually the same product that comes through my water filter built into my refrigerator.

There is absolutely no evidence that bottled water is safer than tap water. In fact the contrary is more likely true. The bottled water industry has less regulations concerning quality than tap water does. Since bottled water is not as regulated as tap water, the mineral content of some bottled waters is high enough to be considered unsafe for consumption by babies or toddlers.

Remember when you first noticed regular water being sold alongside sodas for the same price. We all laughed at the thought of someone paying for a bottle of water when water was virtually free at home or from a drinking fountain

Only a small percentage, 14%, of water bottle containers, are recycled, so the environmental impact of discarded water bottles continues to rise. The remaining water bottles which are not recycled will take between 400 and 1000 years to degrade.
posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I know Charlie..... it doesn't really mention the  "high ends" either (tolulenes, etc.) which on a Relative Sales Value Method have higher PM than any other others -- always have....

It was just  "eye-candy" for the attention sapn of some. (Scott Cox types)

posted by refiguy on Jun 10, 2008 at 05:53 PM

 

 

Ok tiff,  your right , go get your hair and nails sorry...I forgot.... forgive me....

posted by OldBlue56 on Jun 10, 2008 at 06:00 PM

Hey russo, I see you still haven't figured out the difference between your and you're. No wonder you can't make it in this market anymore....

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 11, 2008 at 07:08 AM

Thx Libs....... Raise Minimum Wage....... Then  "Obscene Profits", next.... PRICE CONTROLS! ....Genius!

 “It wasn’t Bush, it wasn’t greedy corporations, or free trade, or history’s most over-predicted recession. It was not the oil companies, income inequality, or the excesses of cowboy capitalism. None of these things caused the unemployment rate to jump a half a percentage point in one month. Ask yourself a few questions: Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low? More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate lay-offs? The answer to all of these questions is same: because very few people lost jobs last month. This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy—hundreds of thousands of them. In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May. And who starts looking for work at the end of Spring? That’s right—students. Hundreds of thousands of students are looking for work right now, and they’re not finding it. Congress is to blame. Last year Congressional Democrats (along with some Stockholm-Syndromed Republicans) passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Free market economists warned them that this would increase unemployment—that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teens and minorities the hardest. But the class-warriors are running the people’s house now, and they would hear none of that, so they took to the floor, let loose the dogs of demagoguery, and saddled America’s pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses and lawn mowing services with a huge cost increase. Now, we see the perfectly logical outcome of wage controls—rising unemployment among the most economically vulnerable.” —Jerry Bowyer

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 11, 2008 at 07:22 AM

And the solution to all our economic problems of late is...... {drum roll}......... BO!

 “Obama’s unique persona and talents will have to be countered with a laser focus on his leftist views and radical history. If the race comes down to speaking ability, or likeability, Obama will win. No amount of charm, however, will change the fact that Obama is the most liberal candidate for president in a generation. He is a committed leftist with historical ties to radical organizations and parties. He offers nothing but the failed big government solutions of the past dressed up with fancy words and vague symbolism... Obama’s leftist positions should come as no surprise. After all, Obama sought the support of the far left New Party when he ran for state senate in Illinois. This is a party who felt the Democrats were not liberal enough and was organized by a collection of Marxist/socialists seeking government control of the economy. Obama has a clear history of working with these leftist groups in Chicago, and steering money and power their way. The question of this election is whether the American people are going to mistake Obama’s charm and charisma for real leadership and effective solutions; if they are going to ignore his troubling past because he gives a good speech and looks good on TV; if they are going to fall for the promise of a government who can give them everything.” —Richard Collins

posted by ChicoEsquela on Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53 AM

Libs, Socialists, Dems, Greenie's..... ever consider the real cost of your economic policies?

“Average life expectancy is very highly correlated with per capita income, and income growth is very highly correlated with economic freedom... When politicians enact anti-economic growth regulations and taxes, even in the name of ‘global warming,’ ‘environmentalism,’ and ‘fairness,’ they are, in fact, shortening the lives of many of their fellow citizens and those in other countries... The political requirements to use corn and other food plants for fuel have driven up the price of food again for billions of people in the world, and those at the bottom of the income ladder are increasingly suffering from malnutrition. In sum, millions, if not billions, of people right now are unnecessarily having their lifespans reduced because of an overreaction to a projected climate change which may or may not have an affect on the lifespans of humans living sometime in the future... Probably many politicians think they are being responsible when they do things like imposing costly environmental taxes, prohibiting new mining for needed metals, and coming up with costly CO2 trading schemes as the Europeans have done, and which are now being debated in the U.S. Congress. Yet, all these actions impede the proper functioning of the market, reduce economic growth and lower life expectancies, in part, by reducing the funds available for medical research and treatments... The fundamental problem is that many politicians do not understand or, perhaps, do not wish to understand tradeoffs. That is, every time they increase a regulation or a tax, or require a government expenditure that reduces economic freedom and does not meet a reasonable cost benefit test, they are not engaged in just some annoyance, but they are costing real human life years.” —Richard Rahn

 

posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 11, 2008 at 07:56 AM

Obama or Mc Cain.  We're screwed either way.  Some choice, huh?  It's time for the American Revolution part 2.

posted by NancyII on Jun 11, 2008 at 08:07 AM

RE: Bottled water.  My water tastes like the 68 year old pipes in this house.  THAT's why I use bottled water to drink.

Other times it's smells like chlorine.  I think that just masks the metallic taste.  Not bad water, just old pipes.

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: