Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:20:21 -0400, "TaxSrv" wrote
in ::

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
...
Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s.

Don't fall for that propaganda regarding "1981 prices, in today's
dollars." There was a spike in crude prices during the Iran-Iraq war.
Retail price, in real dollars, on either side of that spike (late 70's
and mid-80s) were significantly less than today.


What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
the price of crude.

Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
the right time? Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
markets? BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Mike
MU-2

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::


What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
the price of crude.

Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
the right time?

The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*

Think of it as the credit reporting companies making millions of
citizens' personal information public due to lax security procedures,
and then charging to insure those whose data they have compiled
against identity theft, as is currently occurring. While not the same
situation at all, it is another example of business victimizing the
people of this noble nation.

Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
markets?

Stock investors have their money at risk; think October 1988. Domestic
oil producers control a vital commodity without which this nation
would grind to a halt pronto. They should be regulated.

BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

*
http://www.kucinich.us/archive/repor...7+10%3A06%3A14

"Larry Dighera wrote:
The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*


It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't! *Your
reference is to Rep. Dennis the Menace Kucinich, our hometown, nut-case
legislator here, and his proposed tax. He has no problem with taxing us
(the tax would be passed through to us!) and spending it on pork-barrel
stuff and in effect a tax subsidy to foreign auto producers.

Fred F.

It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't!

Well said.

We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't!

Well said.

We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.

Nah. It's the Nimbys. Refineries lower property values. I like W's
suggestion to use old military bases for refineries. They're already
superfund sites.

Don
(Onizuka AFB's shutting according to this morning's news. Too small
for a refinery, though. I hope that eventually Moffet winds up as a
reliever and we can sneak in there when Palo Alto closes. We need to
keep Moffet operational for a few more years until the companies
around here start to need parking for their VLJs.).

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
ZJ5Pe.62754$084.27147@attbi_s22::


We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.

So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
wind of your abode?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
ZJ5Pe.62754$084.27147@attbi_s22::


We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.

So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
wind of your abode?


I wouldn't mind at all. As a matter of fact I'd welcome it. At this very
moment there is a very old refinery 1.13 miles (as the Skyhawk flies) away
from my house and I can't remember the last time I smelled anything from it.

Now, when I was growing up the place regularly put out an odor that would
curl your toes but over the last 20 years it has cleaned up nicely.

It's insane, but it's the law.

So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
wind of your abode?


I wouldn't mind at all. As a matter of fact I'd welcome it. At this very
moment there is a very old refinery 1.13 miles (as the Skyhawk flies) away
from my house and I can't remember the last time I smelled anything from
it.

Now, when I was growing up the place regularly put out an odor that would
curl your toes but over the last 20 years it has cleaned up nicely.

Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
refinery.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.

So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
wind of your abode?

Depends on how far upwind.

One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
for a new refinery or ten.

It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
restrictions be damned. Of course, it would be tied up in the courts for
the next 15 years, and nothing would get done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote \

One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
for a new refinery or ten.

Problem there is the fact that a supertanker doesn't fit too well in the
Great Lakes locks, and that means no good way to get all of the crude up
there, needed for the refinery to work well. (or at all) :-)
--
Jim in NC