Repubs investigate oil company - for selling oil to cheaply

[Vay]

I love this. It really shows the Republican mindset.

Companies like Exxon and Haliburton made record windfall profits, the most of any companies in any industry ever in world history – by brutally gouging consumers last year and blaming it on Katrina. Meanwhile, courtesy of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Citgo has been selling heating oil to poor urban areas in the US at up to 60% discounts to insure that lower-income familes have heat for the winter.

So who do the Republicans go after? The mega-rich, omnipotent corporations exploiting the masses, of course! NOT! They went after Citgo. :fume:

[quote]In Washington, Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas has launched an investigation into one of the world

[Vay]

Amy Goodman interview Democratic congressman Jose Serrano, who took advantage of Chavez’ 60% discount on heating oil for the poor’ program to provide cheap heat to the underprivileged citizens of his district. Serrano just takes it to the Republican mindset in how they’re investigating Citgo for doing the right thing (which is never what they stand for, is it?):

[quote]REP. JOSE SERRANO: [b]I think they’re being obscene. There’s no other way to describe it. I mean, for years, we’ve begged Congress to look at the oil companies, and now I may have to put on my resume that with a program that helps the poor, we

[fred_smith]

I love this. It really shows the Republican mindset.

How?

Companies like Exxon and Haliburton made record windfall profits, the most of any companies in any industry ever in world history

Got anything on that in writing from a reputable source? Comparison of past losses?

– by brutally gouging consumers last year and blaming it on Katrina.

I believe that oil prices are mainly set by the producers not the oil companies. Ever hear of OPEC?

[quote]
Meanwhile, courtesy of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez,[/quote]

I am not sure that courtesy would be the right word. Oh, Chavez? Yes, a fine upstanding citizen. I suppose he can be compared with Marion Barry for his concern for the poor.

Citgo has been selling heating oil to poor urban areas in the US at up to 60% discounts to insure that lower-income familes have heat for the winter.

How nice.

So who do the Republicans go after?

I think the article is talking about Exxon and Mobile right? How did you get from there to Republicans? OH sorry. I see now. Well, what of it? I think that it is highly imaginative of him to find new ways to screw the poor. Do you know how I can get ahold of him?

The mega-rich, omnipotent corporations exploiting the masses,

Well we certainly could not have it the other way right? Besides, how else will I be able to afford expensive caviar, champagne or be able to impress my friends when I light cigars with $100 bills? The money has got to come from somewhere and my vote is to squeeze the poor. If we can freeze them in the process so much the better! By Goodness! That is just what I am going to suggest we do at the next meeting of our cabal. Invading Iran was supposed to be this month’s priority but by Goodness Gracious! You have helped me see the error of our ways. We must stick with our core principles: screwing the poor. Only the strange and perhaps funny thing is that capitalist economies mean everyone is richer. All those helpful and concerned socialist and communist models eventually went bankrupt. Damn. I should be voting communist to be able to get back at those odious poor! Now, I have seen the light and it ain’t from the $100 bill I am burning but from the glint of the ice in the Champagne bucket!

of course!

Bully!

NOT!

Not?!

They went after Citgo.

Quite right! er no! Quite wrong! no! It was right! No, it was wrong! Oh dear. Where are we again?!

[Vay]

Gee Fred, good to see you again. Really missed the witty way in which take apart someone’s post by quoting little bits and pieces of it and subjecting them to sarcasm without actually addressing any points in them and then leaving sounding like you won because you got off a few good ones. I think you’ve got a great future as a Republican spin-doctor – and God knows the administration needs them these days!

How?

Well, the fact that they’d go after one oil company which sells oil to poor communities cheaply and not after oil companies making record profits seems to show a certain mindset, doesn’t it? Is this not somewhat obvious?

Got anything on that in writing from a reputable source? Comparison of past losses?

How about this from USA Today:
ExxonMobil (XOM) reported the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history Monday, a $36.1 billion jackpot that included a record-setting fourth quarter.
I’m not even going to bother posting a link; Google it and you’ll find about a million. As for how it relates to Katrina, do an archive search in democracynow.org.

Only the strange and perhaps funny thing is that capitalist economies mean everyone is richer. All those helpful and concerned socialist and communist models eventually went bankrupt.

Nice red herring there, but thanks, I’ll stick to being a New Deal Democrat. You guys conveniently forget that the US had just about the strongest economies it’s ever had under Democratic Presidents. You also conveniently never fail to remember Carter, as he was the single exception… hmm… but I digress.

My point was to be that equating those who support Capitalism with progressive government intervention with Communism is a rhetorical trick that goes back to the Nixon era. Not surprising that that’s the attack line of the current generation of cheap-laborites, considering how much the current administration has in common with that particular regime. Other than the fact that they’re managing much better at getting away with all of it…for now.

But no, we also believe in Capitalism. We just have a little different take on it. Yours is something like this: the rich don’t need bail-outs from the government or their cronies, so therefor they deserve and get them at every opportunity. On the other hand, the poor, because they do need assistance, shouldn’t get it – else they be weakened and less able to survive in the social darwinist world you’d have them competing for survival in, much like a bunch of crabs pulling each other down as they try to climb out of the bucket.

That goes right along with Senator what’s-his-name’s (please read the articles, as you obviously haven’t) policy of going after Citgo for selling oil cheaply to poor communities rather than going after the big oil companies. And yes, Fred, there are plenty of ways that Exxon and Mobil can price-gouge without actually setting the price per barrel. Got stuff to do now, but I’ll get to it next time.

[fred_smith]

But no, we also believe in Capitalism. We just have a little different take on it. Yours is something like this: the rich don’t need bail-outs from the government or their cronies, so therefor they deserve and get them at every opportunity. On the other hand, the poor, because they do need assistance, shouldn’t get it – else they be weakened and less able to survive in the social darwinist world you’d have them competing for survival in, much like a bunch of crabs pulling each other down as they try to climb out of the bucket.

There you go. I knew that you had all the answers. So, it that is what you truly believe then there is no point talking to me about it. I am one of those that wants to oppress the poor and see them pulling each other down like a bunch of crabs… hmmm that sounds nice… crab with wasabi and vinegar. Doesn’t go well with Champagne though. Ah, there I go again. Sharing all my troubles with the world. How selfish of me. Never had red herring though. Is that like smoked salmon?

[Traveller]

@fred smith

I believe that oil prices are mainly set by the producers not the oil companies. Ever hear of OPEC?

Are they Fred, i thought they were set by the markets, OPEC controls the output, not the price perse, although one does have an influence on the other, current high prices are more down to lack of refining capacity, something that is in the control of the oil companies.

[fred_smith]

I thought they were set by the markets, OPEC controls the output, not the price perse, although one does have an influence on the other, current high prices are more down to lack of refining capacity, something that is in the control of the oil companies.

Actually refining capacity is low because no one wants a refinery built in their neighborhood. That would be the NIMBY effect. So… what exactly are we talking about then? and to my knowledge, since oil companies spend LOTS lobbying governments to allow them to build refineries, I am confused and perplexed. Do oil companies make so much money that they want to waste it lobbying for things that they don’t really want? Please clarify.

[Vay]

Never tried a red herring though

Actually it was a strawman argument, not a red herring. My bad.

[fred_smith]

Actually it was a strawman argument, not a red herring. My bad.

:bravo:

[Traveller]

@fred smith

[quote]I thought they were set by the markets, OPEC controls the output, not the price perse, although one does have an influence on the other, current high prices are more down to lack of refining capacity, something that is in the control of the oil companies.

Actually refining capacity is low because no one wants a refinery built in their neighborhood. That would be the NIMBY effect. So… what exactly are we talking about then? and to my knowledge, since oil companies spend LOTS lobbying governments to allow them to build refineries, I am confused and perplexed. Do oil companies make so much money that they want to waste it lobbying for things that they don’t really want? Please clarify.[/quote]

A typical fred smith post that asks and answers the same question in one go.

Would you want a refinery in your back yard, i doubt it, and the reason the oil companies spend LOTS is to try and get refineries built where they want them, rather than where they are away from built up areas etc.

Refining capacity can be built offshore as well, but of course that is far to costly for the oil companies to consider, despite making record profits.

[BroonAle]

@fred smith

Actually refining capacity is low because no one wants a refinery built in their neighborhood. That would be the NIMBY effect. So…

…build refineries in New Orleans. Loads of back yards there with no one out front. As long as the electrical switches are 50 feet above ground, a bit of water won’t hurt the pipes; the refinery would be weather-proof, the roads are already there and there’d be work aplenty.

[fred_smith]

…build refineries in New Orleans. Loads of back yards there with no one out front. As long as the electrical switches are 50 feet above ground, a bit of water won’t hurt the pipes; the refinery would be weather-proof, the roads are already there and there’d be work aplenty.

Why not? It might lead to a new cocktail. Instead of the hurricane, they could have the refinery?

[Vay]

Ok, this is all cute and stuff – but so far no one has addressed the principle issue of why the Republicans (or at least some of them) would want to go after Citgo for selling oil cheaply to poor communities, rather than going after the other oil giants who have profitted immensely during harsh economic times and a national disaster of immense proportions. (Congress has in fact been asked repeatedly to go after said oil giants for this very thing, but as it happens to be currently controlled by oil-industry friendly Republicans, good luck).

Come to think of, Representative Serrano did give an explanation for this rather bizarre stance, which I’ve quoted above. Anyone care to comment on what he said?

[fred_smith]

Ok, this is all cute and stuff –

Really?

but so far no one has addressed the principle issue of why the Republicans (or at least some of them) would want to go after Citgo for selling oil cheaply to poor communities, rather than going after the other oil giants who have profitted immensely during harsh economic times and a national disaster of immense proportions.

Probably because it involves dumping. It also involves a whacko of a political leader that is a total butt munch. What harsh economic times? Why is it that you people swallow the liberal media line during every Republican administration that we are having bad economic times? Oh yes, we may have strong economic growth (over three percent) and record low unemployment of what 4.3 percent but the Average Joe ain’t benefitin’ is he? Bullshit. The economy is great. No one is suffering more than normal. And besides, don’t you people want oil prices to be high so consumption is driven down? that will of course help with the other pet cause: global warming, er that is climate change er alternating weather patterns. Make up your minds will you. Until then, I have no problem with corporations making record profits. That is what they are in business for. Don’t like it, then buy something else. Stop driving.

(Congress has in fact been asked repeatedly to go after said oil giants for this very thing, but as it happens to be currently controlled by oil-industry friendly Republicans, good luck).

I love these soak the whoever campaigns. First, it is the cigarette companies because no one knows really they didn’t that smoking is bad for you. What next beer companies for getting people drunk? McDonald’s for making people fat? Be reponsible for yourself and stop trying to grab other people’s stuff. Play nice. Wasn’t it Margaret Thatcher who said: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money? How true and isn’t that what all these “special taxes” on this, that or the other company are about?

Come to think of, Representative Serrano did give an explanation for this rather bizarre stance, which I’ve quoted above. Anyone care to comment on what he said?

He can say whatever he wants. As apparently can others including yourself. Whatever.

[Vay]

Probably because it involves dumping.

It also involved giving cheap heating oil to depressed economic areas during the winter. Poor people’s heating bills went down. Just horrible. I can see why that’d have you guys up in arms. The point is, it made the other oil companies look bad, and can’t have that with people like Bush and Delay (received more campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over his career than has any other politician operating in the US, and Delay is…er, was #3) in the government, can we?

It also involves a whacko of a political leader that is a total butt munch.

In that case you guys ought to be investigating our president, as he fits the bill far better. And Chavez isn’t even trying to have him assassinated or overthrown, unlike the other way around!

What harsh economic times?

Ok, sorry, I should’ve said “causing” harsh economic times. High oil prices affect everything from the cost of a bus ride up. (They’re cutting the bus routes in Linkou for this very reason!) And you kinda skipped over the Katrina issue. I can understand why. To say “So what?” to that would be a bit harsh, even for you. Although I wouldn’t put it past you to do so. In fact, please do – there’s so much to be said about that subject…

[quote]don’t you people want oil prices to be high so consumption is driven down?[/quote] Yes, of course I do. That’s a seperate issue, however. If it had been done because of taxes going towards alternative energy research, I’d have said yip yip yahoo. However, much like “family values”, Bush gives nothing but lip service to alternative energy (“Freedom Car”? what was that again?) and his only strategy for lessening depedence on foreign oil is to drill in domestic wildlife refuges.

Be reponsible for yourself and stop trying to grab other people’s stuff. Play nice.

Yeah right. Like the oil companies do that. The president’s new energy bill gave away four billion dollars in subsidies to the gas and oil industry. Not to mention the fact that oil giants find every way possible to pass all their costs onto consumers while giving huge bonuses to executives.

…in the wake of Katrina, they talked a lot about the disruptions to the supply that happened because of refineries being taken out along the Gulf Coast. Well, the reality is a lot of that happened because there had been conscious decisions on the part of the oil industry over the last several years to minimize the amount of on-demand stock they have of oil and therefore maximize their dependence on market and meeting that demand on a rolling basis, so that any disruption in supply is going to be much more – is going to be much more severe and much more quick to be passed on to the consumer.

democracynow.org/article.pl? … 31/1532254

…and in Iraq, where the president gave away contracts to his hunting buddies…

…the way that Iraqi oil contracts are being structured is that they’re using a form of contract called the production sharing agreement. And this form of contract is actually very clever, has been developed by the industry over the last several decades as a way of dealing with the sentiment in oil-producing countries of nationalism, and so it actually technically retains ownership of the oil in – in this case with the Iraqi government. However, it puts in so many stipulations about how that oil can be used and how much profit has to go back to oil companies, etc., etc., that effectively it really minimizes the amount of money that can go to the Iraqi people and maximizes the amount of money that will go to Western-Northern oil companies who are extracting that oil. And what we’re really seeing here is that it’s likely over the next several decades that what this form of contract will mean is essentially $150 billion less for the Iraqi people in the long run.

For more info on this, see the following link: crudedesigns.org/

[fred_smith]

To say “So what?” to that would be a bit harsh, even for you. Although I wouldn’t put it past you to do so. In fact, please do – there’s so much to be said about that subject…

So what?

[Vay]

(in reference to oil companies) Play nice.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the economic “hitmen” we send to poor countries to lean on them to sell their resources – oil foremost among them – cheaply to our companies…

from John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

JOHN PERKINS: Well, really, over the past 30 to 40 years, we economic hit men have created the largest global empire in the history of the world. And we do this, typically – well, there are many ways to do it, but a typical one is that we identify a third-world country that has resources, which we covet. And often these days that’s oil, or might be the canal in the case of Panama. In any case, we go to that third-world country and we arrange a huge loan from the international lending community; usually the World Bank leads that process. So, let’s say we give this third-world country a loan of $1 billion. One of the conditions of that loan is that the majority of it, roughly 90%, comes back to the United States to one of our big corporations, the ones we’ve all heard of recently, the Bechtels, the Halliburtons. And those corporations build in this third-world country large power plants, highways, ports, or industrial parks – big infrastructure projects that basically serve the very rich in those countries. The poor people in those countries and the middle class suffer; they don’t benefit from these loans, they don’t benefit from the projects. In fact, often their social services have to be severely curtailed in the process of paying off the debt. Now what also happens is that this third-world country then is saddled with a huge debt that it can’t possibly repay. For example, today, Ecuador. Ecuador’s foreign debt, as a result of the economic hit man, is equal to roughly 50% of its national budget. It cannot possibly repay this debt, as is the case with so many third-world countries. So, now we go back to those countries and say, look, you borrowed all this money from us, and you owe us this money, you can’t repay your debts, so give our oil companies your oil at very cheap costs. And in the case of many of these countries, Ecuador is a good example here, that means destroying their rain forests and destroying their indigenous cultures. That’s what we’re doing today around the world, and we’ve been doing it – it began shortly after the end of World War II. It has been building up over time until today where it’s really reached mammoth proportions where we control most of the resources of the world.

You probably scoff (or just won’t bother to watch) movies like “Syriana”, but in fact it was a well-researched movie and reflects exactly the reality that former economic hit man Perkins talks about and guys like you don’t want people to know about. As for

(in reference to Katrina) So what?

There’s SO much nasty stuff to say about that with regard to the behavior of this administration that I can’t even start on it or I’ll never finish. But basically it’s a reflection of the overall Republican philosophy of life: “To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs.” I’m sure deep in their hearts, the people you respect so deeply (and possibly you as well) think that what happened in New Orleans was a well-needed house-cleaning.

That’s why Bush won’t even feel bad about lying that he hadn’t known about the danger to the levies beforehand – even though they have him on video watching a briefing of it in advance of the storm landing.

That’s why soldiers were ordered to shoot starving looters in black areas.

That’s why an Amtrak train was allowed to leave the city empty when thousands of people had no means of escape.

That’s why cronies of Bush like Michael Brown still receives huge amounts of tax payers’ money in salary and benefits (it’s ok as long as it isn’t going to social programs, right?) in spite of their utter ineptitude in handling this crisis.

And that’s why the conservative Heritage Foundation is encouraging “recovery” policies that simply cash in on the disaster at the expense of poor folks.

Flat out disgusting. You guys ought to be ashamed. Clinton was impeached by your people for far, far less. Oops, I got started.

[fred_smith]

There’s SO much nasty stuff to say about that with regard to the behavior of this administration that I can’t even start on it or I’ll never finish.

Unfortunately, so much of it like Syriana would be fiction… But hey if that means entertainment, knock yourself out. Please.

But basically it’s a reflection of the overall Republican philosophy of life: “To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs.” I’m sure deep in their hearts, the people you respect so deeply (and possibly you as well) think that what happened in New Orleans was a well-needed house-cleaning.

I KNOW New Orleans and I am telling you what happened there is 90 percent state and local government corruption, patronage and incompetence. What the federal government should have done is kicked out the mayor and governor and taken total control.

That’s why Bush won’t even feel bad about lying that he hadn’t known about the danger to the levies beforehand – even though they have him on video watching a briefing of it in advance of the storm landing.

My dear boy. I can assure you that everyone in New Orleans knows exactly the state of affairs when it comes to public construction projects. I can also tell you that my great aunt who used to live there and anyone else who attended the dinner party circuit used to joke in a dark fashion about the big one that New Orleans was going to get and how the levees wouldn’t stand up. After all, everyone knows how the system works.

That’s why soldiers were ordered to shoot starving looters in black areas.

Well, weren’t the mayor and governor demanding in crying fashion that the government come in and stop them from raping and killing babies? Remember?

That’s why an Amtrak train was allowed to leave the city empty when thousands of people had no means of escape.

You have the mayor to thank for that. Guess you didn’t read the Katrina thread very carefully.

That’s why cronies of Bush like Michael Brown still receives huge amounts of tax payers’ money in salary and benefits (it’s ok as long as it isn’t going to social programs, right?) in spite of their utter ineptitude in handling this crisis.

That’s how the federal government works for everyone including Democrats.

And that’s why the conservative Heritage Foundation is encouraging “recovery” policies that simply cash in on the disaster at the expense of poor folks.

Such as?

Flat out disgusting. You guys ought to be ashamed. Clinton was impeached by your people for far, far less. Oops, I got started

Clinton was impeached for perjury. It was not about sex. He is a lawyer. He knows his obligations. He lied during an investigation into sexual harassment. His lying about the Monica Lewinsky “affair” had a direct bearing on proving prior conduct or a pattern of abuse. As such, it had a far more serious impact than just about getting head in the office.

[Vay]

I. First, again, regarding this:

…stop trying to grab other people’s stuff. Play nice.

Here’s a recent report about your beloved oil industries and how they play so nicely in Nigeria. It describes how, much like in South America, rebels are trying to force their government to wrest adequate compensation for the oil extracted from their land, as well as for oil spills and other environmental damage caused by companies like Shell, Mobil and Exxon. As the author, James Marriot of The Next Gulf, says:

[quote]…the oil corporations, particularly Shell and then Chevron and Mobil and so on, need to be held accountable for what they’ve done, need to be held accountable for 50 years of environmental despoilation, human rights abuses that they’ve been implicated in. They need to be held accountable, and there needs to be a just process by which the revenue from the oil that

[fred_smith]

Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, suspend environmental regulations including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, suspend prevailing wage labor laws, promote vouchers and school choice, repeal the estate tax and copiously fund faith-based organizations. These are just some of the recommendations a trio of hearty Heritage Foundation senior management officials are making to best facilitate the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.

Read more about this and find out why and many others support doing so. You may be pleasantly surprised to find out that there are valid, sensible reasons for doing so.