Record oil company profits + dead troops = million dollars to each soldiers family

[yurbud]

The top three oil companies made profits of $72 billion this year, and if you throw in a couple more, it would be well over $100 billion. If you add up the "hot war" years of 2003 to the present, the profits of the top three alone are over $200 billion

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/big-oils-record-2006-profits/story.aspx?guid=%7B9CC3986E-B8CF-47AF-82B2-33DC255A22F7%7D">
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/big-oils-record-2006-profits/story.aspx?guid=%7B9CC3986E-B8CF-47AF-82B2-33DC255A22F7%7D


Since their profits are dependent on our troops protecting their oil contracts in the Gulf and securing more, it would be a small gesture of gratitude for them to give $1 million to the family of every soldier who falls in a country with oil or a pipeline, which would only add up to $3 billion for Iraq,less than 5% of those $72 billion profits for one year.

if they gave (on edit: WERE TAXED) a comparable sum to every soldier who lost at least one arm, leg, or eye, or were burned and disfigured, that would be quite a bit more but still leave them a tidy profit.

A similar deal could be done with Iraqis and the rebuilding industry. Bechtel, KBR, and Halliburton should give blood money to any civilians killed by troops, mercenaries, or death squads in any country where they do business with the leverage of our military, intelligence services, or state department.

This is not some liberal utopian scheme. Republicans for decades have said it is unfair to have taxes that spread the cost of services over all people based on their ability to pay. Instead, only those who use the services should pay for them. Fair enough. Most of us would not give a rat's ass if we bought our gas from a Russian or French gas station provided the price were the same or better than we are getting now. Therefore, the only beneficiaries of our wars are those companies who want to control and profit from that oil.

Some will say that if we do this, the oil companies will simply pass the cost along to the consumer. Fair enough. So long as they put a four inch tall notice on the gas pump saying what percentage of the price goes to the family of the soldiers who died to give ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell those oil concessions. They can even put a smiley face or American flag on there if they want.

They want the wars and we can't seem to stop them. Fine.

As long as they pay for the damages.

[Lithos]

1. Give? Fair?

ROFL, not those bastards.

L-

[yurbud]

2. exactly

[yurbud]

5. see edit. Thanks for the tip.

[Lithos]

8. Definitely a war-tax here.

These companies are doing all they can (witness the $10K for "evidence" against global warming) to keep the carbon addiction strong and in place. Without this the ME would not be nearly as important strategically, nor would there be such vast sums of money in play, that Iraq would not have the attention it does now.

Also, windfall profits tax should definitely be in place here. Course I think they also should be fined for price gouging, there was nothing in the market to drive the prices up like they did; it was a case pure and simple of trust-abuse where they essentially took advantage of their monopoly.

L-

[ShortnFiery]

3. This is a five star reason that Capitalism needs some oversight and regulation.

These greedy corporate entities don't give a damn about the working and middle classes even if it means that we will drop into a depression and they may have to sky out to South America.

Their only patriotism is to wealth, that mean green. Especially during Hurricane Katrina, they reaped record profits out of a National Tragedy.

The Greedy Corporate CEOs and high level Executives are the UN-Americans. :thumbsdown:

[yurbud]

6. problem is the team can pick the umpire

[Double T]

Capitalism does NOT WORK and American robber barons.......

are the prime example of IT not working.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Well, it's what we've got - NOW, at least the government could break up

the monopolies and return competition into the mix?

We did that after the Depression of the 1930s (knocked down the robber barons and regulated much of the public utilities, etc.), we can do it again. :-)

Hey, we're stuck with Capitalism but not INSANE "free for all" TRADE.

Taxes support our highways and the "public good." The progressive income tax should be reinstated.

How many homes and swimming pools do these billionaires need anyway? :eyes: :thumbsdown:

Show you care, corporate fat cats, and give your fair share to the PUBLIC GOOD, so all peoples can be lifted out of abject poverty.

[Double T]

13. America NEVER learns from HER MISTAKES. Robber barons lead.......

to economic crashes and depressions; 'WE' are on the fast track to our second great depression in less than a century. OUR governments, federal and state, are selling off our ports and taxpayer funded highways to foreign concerns. This time the robber barons even have their own fox news style cheer-leading television network, cnbc. Pure capitalism simply does not work; REGULATED capitalism COMBINED with SOCIALISM stands a fighting chance for success.

[yurbud]

11. I think there is something to the whole supply and demand deal, but in issues of life and death

they should not be able to monopolize the market at the very least, and I would prefer that essential services were not in their hands.

Further, it should be considered treason to advocate for the overthrow of a foreign government for financial gain (which would cut out 99.9% of wars).

[Benhurst]

4. What about the families of the people killed in our quest for

oil and world domination?

[yurbud]

7. that would cost more. If oil companies say they couldn't possibly afford to pay that...

It would be acceptable if their corporate officers, board, and major shareholders went to the effected countries to personally apologize. Without bodygaurds, of course.

[Turbineguy]

10. Passing the costs to the customer?

based on the proven oil reserves of Iraq, the cost of the war alone (not the lost lives) will add $10 per barrel if we were to say the oil has to pay for that cost. This compared to the $1.50 it cost to get the oil out of the ground prior to war. Of course the original neocon cost estimate of the war cost was about a penney per barrel of proven reserves.

Personally, I don't think the oil companies are responsible for this war. The connection is like holding a supermarket responsible for a traffic accident when the customer was on his way there for a loaf of bread.

Oil companies have benefited from Bush's foreign policy which drove oil costs from $10 per barrel (which was too low to promote conservation, alternative energy and exploration) in 1999 to the prices we've seen since. But that does not mean that they wanted war. War is something the neocons wanted. For a business war means future uncertainty, equipment damage (mostly not covered by insurance) and disruption. When Saddam Hussein ran Iraq, they could simply buy the oil. Over time the price of oil would have risen in order to compensate for lack of new supply due to shutdown exploration efforts, that would have resulted in economic viability of alternative energy and new exploration. The war is Bush's baby. He wanted it, he got it. Bush is responsible.

[yurbud]

12. nope. See Greg Palast's column on restricting supply

oil companies didn't want Saddam to flood the market when sanctions came off.

Also, Bush cancelled Saddam's foreign oil concessions and gave them to American corporations.

They did have a different idea for the war--quick in, new dictator, quick out, but they wanted it.

Those concessions are worth TRILLIONS of dollars.

Also, do you think the financial elite would let Bush do something that they genuinely thought would hurt them financially? Why do you suppose the major print and broadcast media were unamimous in their support of the war? The elite only turned on Bush when the deal went south. There's no ideology on Wall Street, just profits and losses. When Bush moved from one column to another, they decided to cut him.

[Turbineguy]

14. I'm not so sure

that Saddam would have been able to flood the market with oil. The oil infrastruture was leaky and creaky and would have taken years to increase production significantly.

Also, Saddam did rather well for himself under the sanctions. He was able to increase his control over Iraq while blaiming the West for all the suffering Iraqis endured, all the while building himself new palaces. Then there were his two creepy sons who made fortunes of their black market operations. I also think Saddam rather enjoyed the game of cat and mouse he was playing with Western Governments (as well as the UN inspections program). It made him a player on the world stage instead of just some tinpot dictactor.

Oil companies are by and large multinationals who operate a commodity business where what happens in one area effects others. They also have long range plans which transcend the mere 8 years America must suffer through one President. Oil companies deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein on a daily basis.

The financial elite operate the way any of us do. We look at the situation and control it to the extent we can and look for ways to benefit out of the things we cannot or wish not to control. When our employer comes up with a new way of running his business we look at it in terms of "OK, how does this affect me? What will I get out of it? What changes, if any will I have to make?

But none of this is meant to denigrate your original point in any way!

[yurbud]

15. bottom line: Saddam's oil was nationalized, our companies frozen out, Bush changed both

With nationalized deals, there is only so much profit oil companies can extract--they are like the migrant workers hired to pick strawberries--the fruit passes through their hands, but they never own it.

They got a big benefit out of this.