Could someone shoot Dick Durbin in the head...now. I think Jim Cramer is sitting on his hands to keep from strangling the stupid SOB.

So what did he say? I'm curious because I really like the guy.

wow, there's a surprise.

I like Jim Cramer's radio show.

Durbin was talking about protecting the environment... fucking crackpot.

Cramer is an yappy lap dog.

He was also border-line rabid for penalizing the oil companies and dictating how much "profit" they are allowed to make. His blinders were focused only on the absolute dollar amount, and paid no heed to the fundamental concept of "margin". He also seemed to be oblivious to the impact that would have on refinery investment, levels of employment, etc. Total kook.

I like what Kucinich proposed recently and where we'd institute an excessive profit tax on gasoline and diesel. The tax would be imposed on all industry profits that are above a reasonable profit level. That money could be used to do all sorts of things, like give tax credits to people who buy cars that go 65 miles on a single gallon of gas.

There'd be no impact on refinery investment, levels of employment, etc. The oil companies would still be making a ungodly amount of money even with the profit tax.

taxes are not a penalty to be dispensed punatively.

i am just flummoxed that anyone could think it reasonable to tell a company "how much money did you make? well, i think that that's too much. you should be making something more like this."

Do you object to any kind of income tax? Do you think the progressive income tax is somehow flummoxing?

And I presume you think that in 1980 the average CEO made 50 times the average worked in his family ... that by 2000 that propostion had risen to 500:1 and in now just under 800:1... that somehow that is just proof of what a good job a company is doing.

But keep talking this up... this defense of excess profits as the planet chokes is very similar to democrats defending abortion and gay marriage... the degree to which Republicans are "flummoxed" about the average American worker disturbed by these numbers is the degree to which the next Congress will be democrat.

I'm not opposed to taxing the hell out of gasoline, in fact i think that it should be made more expensive so that we as consumers wean ourselves of it. I just think that penalizing a company for making too much money is tantamount to extortion.

Reasoned response. How about an "excess profits" tax on gas that both encourages the "market" to produce more energy effeciency, consumers to get weaned from the teat of Exxon, and then use the revenue from the excess profit tax to support research for alternative and sustainable sources of energy.

Is this extortion?

I think what's happened in the last 40-60 years is that the "marketplace" and post-market state capitalism has moved darkly to a globalized profit-taker, sorta insider trader on international economics. Reasonable people like you want the rules to stay in place that were appropriate for 1950 to apply to 2006. Like using aspirin to take care of brain cancer.

but you're still just saying that you still think that our government can decide when a company is too successful. I think that eliminating the protections and tax-breaks given to oil companies, and letting the cost at the pump reflect the true cost of the product, would be more effective. I think that our fundamental disagreement is that I think that the market works if it's allowed to work unfettered, and you seem to lean more to thinking that it can't work fairly. and i don't believe in fairness.

You disapprove of the FDA? You think that USDA meat inspections are interference in the marketplace? You think that smog emissions should not be controled and let the consumer in the free market decide what car is safe or not?

The lines between the public good and fairness intertwine. Until the last couple of years it was nostalgic to think that government's purpose was to safeguard the public good. I'll acknowledge that this is in fact a moral argument...

There's a good chance that most Americans wouldn't cry or face a personal moral dilemma we "extorted" the oil industry. In fact, if there's one thing Congress doesn't do enough of, it's extorting/regulating/kicking big business in the balls.

Do you guys really think Congress is smart enough to outwit the Oil Industry, or any other industry for that matter?

Congress may not be smart enough... but the American Citizen is. I truly, ultimately, strategically, hopefully, relentlessly believe this.

It's not about wit or how smart they are, it's about whether they have any sense of morality or a genuine interest in the average American citizen.

I think the American Citizen is, too, but that's why I side with Crack. I don't think the price of gasoline is too high yet. Let it get too high and it will fix itself.

We have a big problem here in central Maryland with a 72% increase in home energy prices, and it's a direct result of a bunch of elected lawyers trying to outplay energy executives on deregulation. And we, the ratepayers, are getting fucked in the ass, and the politicians are scrambling around trying to not look stupid.

That's what I'd rather not have happen on this whole Oil Industry punishment gig.

harry...i agree with you but you're really just trying to demonize crack. he's not trying to stand for up for everything that is evil about conservatism, he is just saying that the market should be free. it's dangerous for the government to decide when a company is "making too much." where do you set that level? what happens to a company when they realize that they will make just as much money if they stop producing when they hit a certain income level?

like i said, i'm all for taxing the shit out of those greedy corporate fuckers, but let's keep what he's saying just what he's saying. he's not arguing that we shoudl be able to start war with whatever oil-possessing countries we want if ExxonMobile wants it. jesus.

exactly. congress can't make laws fast enough to keep up with how clever the corporate lawyers are. the responsiblity should be more on the consumer...

at the same time, i think the government should limit the consumer's choices to more responsible ones. abolish the H2, or all cars that don't meet certain MPG standards. that will actually help. putting a luxury tax on oil companies is not going to solve the problem. your heart is in the right place, but yikes.

I'm just not convinced that consumers alone can have a significant impact on reducing oil use--business and government have to make major changes as well. Out here in the suburbs, I could probably find a way to take a series of buses to work if I didn't mind increasing my commute time from 45 minutes to 90. Other than that, I can't say I do much "frivolous" driving. I just don't think consumers waste gas the way they waste, say, water or paper; they buy cars that waste the gas, but it's not like they're driving an extra 20 miles a day for no reason.

OK, this is going to sound stupid, and it probably is. There's not much that consumers can do on a day-to-day basis to cut back on fuel usage because their fuel-usage decisions aren't made daily--they're made once every 8 or 10 years when they decide what car to buy. It's a stupid psychological block Americans have for not thinking through the consequences of choices (is that an American disease or a human disease?). And I don't want it to sound like I'm making excuses--yes, consumers have to shoulder the blame for buying gas guzzlers.

But apart from buying more fuel efficient cars, what kind of impact can consumer actually have? Even if we all promised to buy hybrid cars from this day forward, it'll take 15 years (a number I just pulled out of my ass) before the majority of the gas guzzlers are off the road--people can't afford to replace their cars any sooner.

I think industry and government need to lead the way to a less oil-dependent future. The fact that there's never been a Manhattan Project for new energy technologies in this country is insane.

Also, you know if the government puts an additional $0.50 per gallon tax on gas, the oil companies will raise their prices $0.50, stick the consumer with the whole tax bill and keep their profit levels exactly where they are.

bingo. the government has to abolish gas guzzling cars. make it illegal to drive something that doesn't get over 20 mpg. don't let the car companies produce them. it sounds rather command economy and communist, but fucking a. we need to do things like that if we're even going to try and pretend that we want to be free from middle eastern oil.

ahmedinejad (sp) shouldn't be allowed to use his country's place in OPEC as a bargaining chip when it comes to nuclear weapons. the answer to that is not invading iran. it is making ourselves less dependent on oil. too bad fucking bush loves making money too much to put the interests of america and its people ahead of the corporate checkbook.

Speaking of deregulation, and I say this as someone who admittedly doesn't follow business news or understand finance in any way...

Has the deregulation of any industry ever benefitted consumers? It seems to me that the only one who ever benefits is big business.

Anytime a politician says something is good for America, they mean American business.

Deregulation is generally a bad idea for the people. Except where it refers to say, the internet.