Oh yeah? Oil companies are still profiting only a dime on each gallon of gas it sells. They invest in infrastructure. They employee people. They extract it. They ship it. They refine it. They ship it again. And they get a dime on the gallon.

How much does the state get for doing absolutely fucking nothing?

So mother fucking what?!

Just imagine, for every dollar that Exxon Mobil is making, the government is making four, five, six, maybe even TEN times as much.

Companies make money, so the government is entitled to it?

I'm sorry, but the government is fleecing us at the pump FAR more than the government.

please edit your post so it makes at least a modicum of sense.

I just find it funny that Little Wing tries to make it look like the oil companies are getting the short end of the stick here.

When the government taxes the oil companies, they're taxing us. You think the oil companies are going to sit back and say, "Dang, the government is taxing us more, I guess we'll make less profit now!" No, they'll raise prices to cover it.

I also don't get why oil companies profiting is a bad thing. That profit is what drives them to somehow allow us to get oil from thousands of miles away and process it into something we can use for transportation at a cost much lower than we pay for bottled tap water. Let them have their dime per gallon.

where did I say any company making a profit is a bad thing?
and tell you what, oil companies are "allowing" us this wonderful priveledge of getting their oil for an average of $3.15 a gallon here in lovely Massachusetts.
You're out of your head if you think they aren't jumping for joy over all that money to roll around in at the expense of the population having to go into debt everytime they want to fill up their SUVs.

So do me a favor and back the fuck down- I don't give a shit about the role of government or much of anything to do with this thread, but to read LittleWing posting nonsense about how LITTLE profit the oil companies make is just retarded, and a lie.

where did I say any company making a profit is a bad thing? - malice

and tell you what, oil companies are "allowing" us this wonderful priveledge of getting their oil for an average of $3.15 a gallon here in lovely Massachusetts. - Malice

When the government taxes the oil companies, they're taxing us. You think the oil companies are going to sit back and say, "Dang, the government is taxing us more, I guess we'll make less profit now!" No, they'll raise prices to cover it.

I also don't get why oil companies profiting is a bad thing. That profit is what drives them to somehow allow us to get oil from thousands of miles away and process it into something we can use for transportation at a cost much lower than we pay for bottled tap water. Let them have their dime per gallon.

So do me a favor and back the fuck down- I don't give a shit about the role of government or much of anything to do with this thread, but to read LittleWing posting nonsense about how LITTLE profit the oil companies make is just retarded, and a lie. - Malice

What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents.

The federal tax on gasoline, on the other hand, is nearly twice that. Then there's state gasoline taxes. (If you live in New York, for example, you're paying 68 cents a gallon in taxes.)

If Exxon is gouging us at ten cents a gallon, what exactly is the federal government doing to us at 18.4 cents a gallon?

And Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%. Profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26%. Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies.

I just find it funny that Little Wing tries to make it look like the oil companies are getting the short end of the stick here. - Malice

Oil companies will get that dime on a gallon of gas NO MATTER WHAT! The oil companies aren't getting the short of the stick here. WE ARE!

Wake up.

Texas v. Ohio
March 3, 2008; Page A16

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around Ohio and Texas for tomorrow's primaries, they are telling a tale of economic woe. Yet the real story isn't how similar the two states are economically but how different. Texas has been prospering while Ohio lags, and the reasons are instructive about what works and what doesn't in economic policy.

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these "runaway plants" are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They've moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas. GM recently announced plans for a new plant to build hybrid cars. Guess where? Near Dallas. In 2006 the Lone Star State exported $5.5 billion of cars and trucks to Mexico and $2.4 billion worth to Canada.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.

The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.

Texas, a role model for us all

Texas, a role model for us all

Is the implication here that their economic model is worse because of certain stereotypes surrounding Texans?

No, definitely not. But in the case of that editorial, the data was interpreted in terms of "market competitiveness" when there are probably dozens of other factors that could be taken into account while sizing up a) the economy, and b) the actual quality of life in both states. GDP, average household income, personal income and savings, state revenue, quality of health care and social services, laws protecting workers, etc. etc. According to the article, both states have relatively low unemployment rates (6% for Ohio isn't all that high). According to the one I posted last week, Texas is one of the most polluted areas of land on the planet. This of course is partly a side effect of oil production, but the private companies involved refuse to regulate themselves.

Texas does emit the most greenhouses in the country, but it is also the country's largest producer of petroleum and plastics. That has more to do with the very fact that those things are being produced than Texas' actual government policies. If you produce it somewhere else, the greenhouse gases would just be coming from that place instead.

Now, as far as quality of life, I don't think anything could trump the health of the economy. That's not to say there aren't other factors, but those other factors (personal income/savings, health care, state revenue, etc.) are positively affected by a healthy economy. So I think it would be a little absurd to say Ohio has a higher quality of life than Texas just because Ohio has great social services--anybody who's worth a damn would easily prefer a job over welfare money.

This is definitely not true. Some places' environmental policies on the whole are lackadaisical at best, Texas being one of them. It's important to realize that the laws regarding such things are made by the people living there and factors such as the amount of pollution a state emits really have no state, national, or universal application.

I didn't make the assertion that Ohioans have a higher standard of living than Texans, nor am I arguing which state is better because I personally wouldn't want to live in either place. The fact is that people in both states have relatively different philosophies on what constitutes a good area to raise a family and make a living. Economically speaking, which is more important, the opportunity to become filthy rich or not having a huge social income disparity? Didn't Houston have one of the nation's highest crime rates when GW was Governor, yet was one of the country's wealthiest places? I'm too lazy to look it up. People say that Texans are friendly and polite. They also have weird ideas about homeschooling their children and consensual sex between two adults.