Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (321856)	1/20/2007 8:26:31 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576880

I didn't say they wouldn't pass any increases in costs to consumers. That too is Econ 101. What I did say was that removing tax incentives from oil companies when oil prices are at $50+, would NOT force them to stop investing in new, expensive drilling opportunities, because those investments are still worthwhile, even without the incentives. Here's another thing, longnshort. You are worried about the poor consumer and the poor oil company. So clearly you are thinking short term. If you were a real Republican, instead of one without a backbone, then you'd realize that although painful for the consumer and the economy, high oil prices are exactly the thing this country needs. Oil is bad for this country in 3 very large ways: our oil consumption funds the world's worst Islamic dictatorships and they fund terrorists (national security), our oil addiction puts makes our economy vulnerable to the whims of those same Islamic dictatorships, and pollution from burning of oil contributes quite a bit to global warming which costs us money. So when oil prices are high, we may all dislike that, but that makes me happy, because it drives the market dynamics that fuel innovation in the alternatives space and getting off the oil should be this country's number one priority. So if you were a real Republican, you'd fight the war on terrorism on several fronts, not just the military one. You'd make damn sure that we get off the oil, instead of worrying about protecting the oil company's revenues. Hell, a law ensuring that the American consumer never pays less than $4 per gallon would be tough medicine, but would be good for us long term. The extra profits could go to incentives to alternative fuel development. Now that would be a worthwhile investment with out taxpayer dollars. I'd be much more willing to spend my tax dollars that way than further enriching already rich oil companies.

To: longnshort who wrote (321856)	1/20/2007 8:38:36 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576880

Editorial Reform, Finally, in the Senate The Senate has finally passed credible reforms of its shabby ethics code, reining in lawmakers’ more egregious quid pro quo dealings with their fund-raising cohorts in the lobbying industry. The Republican minority had second thoughts about how its transparently obstructionist tactics would look to constituents. And an overwhelming majority then approved the first serious anticorruption strictures since the Watergate era, banning gifts, entertainment, travel and other inducements that lobbyists and their employers use in greasing privileged access to lawmakers and their staffs. The Senate action is particularly praiseworthy for zeroing in on the money-sweet heart of the matter: lobbyists will have to disclose the way they “bundle” multiple corporate donations as campaign sweeteners for grateful lawmakers. Also, senators must henceforth pay full charter rates for the lobbyist-catered corporate jets they have been flying for token fees. And they will have to own up to the purpose and cost of their last-minute “earmarks” — lucrative contracts for favored pleaders that are stealthily approved without debate. The Senate also voted to end the lavish parties paid for by fawning fat cats to “honor” key politicians at the presidential conventions. And it voted against a growing scandal closer to home, barring spouses of newly elected members from lobbying the Senate. Lawmakers also banned members from secretly negotiating for prized jobs in industries too often under their official purview. These are strong measures, and Harry Reid, the majority leader, deserves credit for prevailing with a bipartisan approach despite his lobbyist-friendly instincts. Unfortunately, the Senate again failed to create an independent anticorruption monitor to reach beyond the clubby traditions that have masked abusers. Mr. Reid should join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in pursuing this needed measure. It was heartening to see that the bill was toughened, not undercut, by amendments from two Democrats and a Republican. Notably absent from the infighting was John McCain of Arizona, a past advocate for reform who may be too busy placating G.O.P. powers for his expected bid for the presidency. The Senate did well enough without him. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company