America needs someone to blame. Our president has been very vocal about how big oil is exploiting us making unethical profits. I think I remember him saying they get some 4 billion in subsidies. That would be tax credits? Subsidies are something else. But his point, big oil and the price consumers pay, and that “F” word, fair. So he is pointing his finger at big oil and I’m coming out of the closet on this, it’s me.
I don’t work for an oil company but I do have IRA/401K and own about $10K of oil stock direct. (http://hollyfrontier.com/) Wife of Illusion picked it, just to give fair credit. But it was easier to find info on the evil ExxonMobil, so let’s take a look at them. Last year they paid out 29 billion to stockholders. The largest type of stock-owners for them is from pension funds, 31%. (Everybody hum, “look for, the union label”) Well that makes me feel better! Obama wants to cut into big oil profits and reduce what the unions earn with their pension plans (has he told them this plan yet?). Oh well, works for me since I’m not a union fan by any means. But first, lets look at some of their numbers.
ExxonMobil’s earnings come from around the world.
- ExxonMobil earns far more money from its operations in more than 100 countries around the world than it does from U.S. sales at the pump.
- Less than 6 percent of ExxonMobil’s earnings in 2011 were from refining and selling gasoline and other products in the United States.
- More than three quarters of ExxonMobil’s 2011 operating earnings came from outside the United States and were distributed to millions of people in the United States who are shareholders or whose pension or retirement plans hold ExxonMobil shares.
- During the fourth quarter of 2011, ExxonMobil earned about one-third of a cent for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States. Compare that to the 30 to 60 cents per gallon collected by the federal and state governments in gasoline taxes.
ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States.
- In 2011, ExxonMobil had tax expenses in the United States of more than $1 billion a month – every month.
- Our total 2011 U.S. tax expenses were $12.3 billion, which included:In 2011, our $12.3 billion in tax expenses in the United States exceeded our $9.6 billion of earnings in the United States.
- $3.6 billion in U.S. income taxes
- $5.6 billion in sales-based taxes
- $3.1 billion in other taxes, such as property and excise taxes.
- Over the past five years, ExxonMobil’s total U.S. tax expense was $57 billion, which is $18 billion more than the company earned in the United States during the same period.
- Despite these facts, critics continually try to raise the industry’s taxes by calling for the removal of “subsidies” for oil companies. What they call “subsidies” are actually standard provisions in the tax code available to many U.S. producers and manufacturers, including oil and gas companies.
- In 2011, ExxonMobil earned about 8.5 cents for every dollar of global revenue.
- That’s less than half of the earnings per dollar of sales made by companies selling smart phones, computers, pharmaceuticals, beverages and tobacco, just to name a few examples.
- ExxonMobil’s earnings, and those of the U.S. oil and gas industry, are generally in line with the average earnings of all U.S. industries.
- In 2011, ExxonMobil distributed more than $29 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases to reduce the number of shares outstanding.
- More than 85 percent of ExxonMobil’s shareholders live in the United States.
- Chances are that most Americans are benefiting in some direct or indirect way from ExxonMobil’s success even if they don’t own our stock outright.
- Public sector and teachers retirement funds hold ExxonMobil stocks in some of the biggest states in the country – New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee, Alaska, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Utah.
- Many more retirement funds, 401-Ks and IRAs hold shares in ExxonMobil and other major publicly traded oil companies – including those for government workers and members of Congress.
Now this is all according to Exxon, and they could be making some of this up…..Who to believe???
Obama or Big Oil,
Obama or Big Oil,
Obama or Big Oil,
The clear answer is neither. I do have some “trust” in the numbers they publish, that if they were false, someone would be challenging them. Three quarters of their revenue came from outside the US. $29 billion was paid to shareholders which is a good thing for our economy. $12 billion paid in taxes. Does that not mean $30 some billion was made in other countries but was imported to the US and is significant to our economy? Doesn’t Obama and all the other “elected officials” talk about our trade imbalance and what we need to do to balance it by selling more to foreign countries……Unless you are an oil company? And the subsidies they want to cut, I’ve previously written how Harry Reid protects the gold mining industry in Nevada from paying nearly the same rate as oil companies. Can someone explain that to me, gold mining doesn’t hurt the environment? Oh, not as bad as oil and fossil fuels. Doesn’t hurt how much they have contributed to Sen. Reid over the years.
And why am I on this rant, again? On FOX last week there was a segment on five coal power plants to be closed in Pennsylvania due to new EPR regulations. That reminded me of a picture I saw of a hamster powering a computer as being everyone’s future. Turns out it will take more than one hamster. So here’s a utube of Ray’s days to come…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLaXNFsyId4
What do the uber liberals really want, Obama, Pelosi, Lisa Jackson? Maybe someone at a liberal network can shed some light.
On Sean Hannity’s Thursday radio show, CNBC CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, considered by many to be the father of the tea party movement, explained to listeners what “progressive” economics means when it comes to energy policy — high gas prices.
“Listen,” Santelli said. “I deal with economists. Progressive economists — they want $10 and $15 gas prices because they think they can have a windmill that will go on my ’64 Pontiac and power me downtown from the ‘burbs every day. It’s reprehensible.”
Santelli explained why energy is an important part of the vitality of the economy and a successful economy means higher energy usage.
“Our society, our culture — the greatness of America — goes hand-in-hand with energy, and our leaders need to wake up,” Santelli said. “We need energy, OK? And if they want to turn into a third-world country where there is absolutely no pollution whatsoever. And I think we need to be good to the planet, but we need to be more honest — do we want to be a superpower that uses energy and tries to do it wisely, or do we want to put our head in the sand and think that these technologies that are noble, that I have been talking about since I was in grammar school debating solar and geothermal. They’re not ready, and I think it’s just a disservice to my kids that they’re going to make energy usage such a penalty-type scenario, where we all know if you want to put GDP up, energy usage is going to go right along with it.”
the MSM silence is not amazing at all. President Obama is the darling of the media, and they want desperately to see him re-elected. And investigating the causes of the high price of gas wouldn’t help their crusade, because in truth, the outrageous price of gas is primarily Obama’s fault — nay, his design.In truth, Obama’s Green Regime has done everything it can to retard domestic fossil fuel production. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has locked away vast new areas of our country even from exploration, much less from exploitation, of the enormous reserves we possess.
Obama has killed (at least for now) the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried down from our ally Canada as much oil as we import from the Middle East. And the administration has dramatically restricted drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.The Green Regime’s scheme has been from the jump to jack up the price of fossil fuels in order to get Americans to adopt so-called “green energy” sources, such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels. To this end, even as the administration puts every road-block in the way of domestic fossil fuel product, it lavishes millions of taxpayer bucks on corrupt, inefficient “green energy” companies.The net effect has been to increase our reliance on Middle Eastern oil even more, precisely at a time when that region is reaching the high point of its crescendo of crisis.But in the immortal words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive, “you ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Obama’s controversial EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, has pushed through the agency a passel of new regulations that will raise the cost of electricity dramatically over the next three years.These new EPA regulations — clearly intended to make up for the fact that the administration couldn’t get its cap-and-trade legislation through Congress even when its own party controlled both houses — and their baleful effects are the focus of a detailed new study by economist Kathleen Hartnett White (of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment).
In her study (“EPA’s Approaching Regulatory Avalanche: ‘A Regulatory Spree Unprecedented in U.S. History'”), Ms. White reviews ten major new rules that either have been already adopted or are under review by the agency. She argues convincingly that the EPA is using the Clean Air Act (in a way never intended by Congress) to hobble fossil fuel energy production.The rules she discusses are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“Utility MACT”), the Industrial Boiler MACT, the Portland Cement Kiln MACT, the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule, the Coal Combustion Residuals Rule, the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Particulate Matter NAAQS, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources, and the GHG Regulation of Mobile Source.
Behind these banal, bureaucratic labels lies the banality of evil: the plan of forcing a massive change of life and living standards without the consent of the governed (that is, the victims).Ms. White estimates that these rules, scheduled to become operational by 2015, will cost our economy more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of jobs. This would occur in the midst of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
Four of the rules in particular urgently need congressional scrutiny. They clearly aim at severely curtailing coal-fired generation of electricity, with nothing yet available to replace the power. White notes that numerous studies by various organizations, including the Federal Energy Reliability Commission and the National Electric Reliability Council, have shown that these four rules alone will force the elimination of more than 80 gigawatts of electric power, or about 8% of the entire generating capacity of the country.
The result will likely be prices spikes and brown-outs, doubtless leading to job losses here and more companies relocating abroad.
White notes that many of these regulations are based on shaky science, with both the National Academy of Science and even the EPA’s own scientific advisory panels criticizing the scientific basis of the various new regulations.
Let’s not fool ourselves about whether the skyrocketing gas and soon-to-be-skyrocketing electricity prices are intended by this administration. Obama himself forewarned us when he was running for office. As he said in January of 2008, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The new EPA rules are aimed at taking the place of the cap-and-trade law that never made it out of Congress. The Obama administration is using a regulatory agency to do the dirty work it couldn’t swindle the people into accepting.