Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html</a> Turns out oil executives lied point blank through their teeth to Congress. They were directly asked if they or anyone from their company had met with Vice-President Dick Cheney's task force on energy. All said no, though one was smart enough to say "not to my knowledge". I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage over this issue. We're paying an insane amount of money for gas, while oil companies are reaping in even bigger profits. Now, it turns out they contributed to the new policies that, big surprise, gave huge tax breaks to oil companies. But I suppose it's just an amazing coincidence that Bush and Cheney were also oil men.
Originally Posted By ecdc Oops, sorry itsme. Didn't see you'd started this topic already. Oh well, maybe it'll get some attention and people can realize how in bed with big oil the administration really is.
Originally Posted By ElKay >>Another said "he did not know"<< So what? Is a meeting with Cheney such a common event that it would slip the mind of the president of an oil company? That's just like what folks are speculating Scooter Libby's defense is going to be--I can't remember, my memory is soooo very bad. It's so like deja vu. Anyone recall a few years back a group of all of the major American tobacco company presidents were hauled before a Congressional committee and under oath asked if they knew cigaretts caused cancer. To a man they all said NO, that their research was inconclusive. Later, leaked memos from more than one of the tobacco firms indicated that the executive suites were aware of the link between tobacco and cancer and heart disease. Now we get a similar panel of oil firms and they pretty much say the same sort of thing, but this time, Republican Senator Ted Stevens from the oil producing state of Alaska decides to prevent a request from a Democrat committee member from swearing in those execs. and exposing themselves to perjury. That's just what happens when loyal Republican Congressmen demonstrate their allegience to their constituents--BIG BUSINESS.
Originally Posted By Elderp Why wouldn't they have lied? They weren't even required to swear in when they testified? The Senator from Alaska made it really easy for them to get away with anything they wanted to.
Originally Posted By itsme Ecdc, Post on. Links is what this place has become but its funny how stuff like this never gets linked, so the more the merrier. Elderp, That senator from Alaska also just made a big deal about how the FCC needs to be able to monitor cable and satellite radio to save us from bad words and half naked people, He said he will do everything in his power to do it, Its morally wrong to say or hear those things. So yea its all about the morals, Im waiting for him to comment about this and his buddies who he tried to protect now caught lying. Im sure he will publicly reprimand them for it and tell us all how its wrong. But as usual we will all be told that no crime was committed so its a non-story.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<But I suppose it's just an amazing coincidence that Bush and Cheney were also oil men.>> Actually this is the first thing you have said that makes any sense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is a meeting with Cheney such a common event that it would slip the mind of the president of an oil company?> He wasn't the president of the company when the meeting with Cheney alledgedly occurred.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well that explains why it must have slipped his mind, huh. Any GOP types like to take a swing at the question of why the republicans would insist that the oil execs not testify under oath?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Possibly because the oil execs should not have been there in the first place and they didn't want to give the press any unfair photos? Just a theory, but it certainly isn't because they want the oil execs to be able to lie without getting into trouble. Here is a fact... All of you who like to pile on the oil guys... well... if they offered YOU their job and their salary you would take it in a second. Stop acting so jealous.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Perhaps the oil guys shouldn't have been in super-secret meetings with the white house in the formation of our energy policy. Perhaps that's the reason they LIED TO CONGRESS about not being there. Perhaps that's the reason that the white house refused court subpeonas to reveal the names of the people attending these meetings for the formation of our own energy policy. Perhaps the republicans knew in advance that the oil executives were going to lie, and that's why they insisted that the execs not be required to swear an oath prior to their testimony. Just a theory ...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, perhaps. But until there is proof nothing is going to happen.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I wrote this on another thread, but why do we want to start regulating prices of companies? Why do we NOT want the oil companies to make money? I wouldn't want the government coming in and telling me that I have to put a ceiling on my prices. Companies make big money, and everyone gets upset about it. Would it be better if it were a Chinese oil company? Or a Saudi Arabian oil firm? What's the beef here? Heck, we pay $3.95 for a gallon of milk here in California, let's go picket the milk industry!!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We want the oil companies to make money. Just not so much that it means no one else can.
Originally Posted By itsme >>if they offered YOU their job and their salary you would take it in a second. Stop acting so jealous ------ So if Baba Streisand or Mikey Moore offered you a position/job with them would you take it in a heartbeat? >>but why do we want to start regulating prices of companies? ----- Do you know that insurance companies tell people/business that "this" is all your allowed to charge or this is what we will pay for that". Now i know its not the govt but its the same thing and the govt allows them to do it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Just not so much that it means no one else can.> I don't follow you. Oil companies make money, and we don't?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Higher percentage of income to excessive profits in oil industry = lower disposable income to be spent at retailers and services. Higher energy and higher production and shipping costs = higher costs to consumers = less buying power = lower sales for retailers and services The cost of oil is built in to the cost of every good and service we consume. If the cost of oil goes up the cost of oil and of all goods and services go up. And when real incomes don't go up as much as inflation - which they haven't - then there is even less disposiable income for people to spend on luxuries and non-essential items. Spending drives the economy and creates growth. When spending goes down, so does the economy.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Spending drives the economy and creates growth. When spending goes down, so does the economy.> Thanks for the Economics lesson. I got that, Tom. But the economy is not doing poorly. In fact, with the rise in gasoline prices from this past summer, there was very little change in oil consumption. And who decides what is 'enough' for oil companies to make?
