Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans refuse to swear in testifying oil execs (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What are they afraid of? (4.00)
    What are they afraid of in forcing them to testify under oath?  Are they that afraid of the truth?
      To borrow/butcher a quote.

      Q: Is it ignorance or apathy? A: I don't know and I don't care.

      by GTPinNJ on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:21:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Learned from Big Tobacco (4.00)
      Remember the little problem with tobacco execs lying under oath when they testified? It's clear the GOP have learned from that and have decided to avoid the issue of holding CEOs accountable by not requiring them to be under oath. That way the CEOs can do what they do best—lie about their companies.

      GOP: Party before Country

      by puppethead on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:24:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I'm interested in whether this is SOP... (none)
      Do most people testifying before congress get sworn in first? Do gov't officials usually get sworn in? Is is generally the case that the laws against lying to congress suffice or do they have to take an oath, too?

      If the SOP is that usually no swearing is done, then I agree with the Repugs on this one. If not, then I agree with the Dems. Context would be appreciated.

      •  When I Testified (none)
        I was sworn in as was the rest of the panel that was testifying.  I did make it clear that I was testifying personally and that my comments did not necessarily reflect the views of my firm.  
    •  Indeed (none)
      It does make one wonder why they would take issue with testrifying under oath.  Cleverly this all makes it look like the wacky Senator is setting the ground rules.  It's not like they asked not to be under oath, right?

      I've been debating the oil company windfalls with a friend of mine that has relatives in the oil industry.  His theory has been that ultimately these windfalls will be put back into R&D, building new ways to get oil out of the ground and possibly researching oil alternatives.  

      So, here's a question: how do we know?

      These are all publicly traded companies, so how can we tell from looking at their books what they are doing with the money.  Are they taking these profits and sinking them into bonds, or the market?  Or are they developing new ways to create energy in the future?  

      I tend to think that, in the end, this is all good if that's what happens.  Yeah we all get screwed this year on energy costs, but if that means that the energy companies are investing in ways to keep costs down in the future, I have no qualms with it.  If it means that R&D into wind, solar, etc, is going to get better funding, then I'm okay with us biting the bullet this year (provided that we help out the poorest to make sure they can afford the tab).  

      But I'd like some solid assurance that this will be the case.  An oil exec testifying to this effect while not under oath doesn't cut it.  I'd like to see the  numbers.

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:48:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I oppose windfall taxes in all cases. (none)

        The government has no business deciding what percentage of R&D spending is proper for a company.  So long as the company acquired the money in a legal manner, it matters not whether it was a result of excellent planning on the part of the company, or merely luck.

        Simply taxing a company extra for succeeding is very poor policy indeed.

        •  Succeeding at what? (none)
          Screwing the public? Excessive profits for big oil means less money in the pockets of hard working americans. If that money were truly put into R&D to make the transition to a non oil economy that would be one thing, but where is the evidence of that? It is time to find out what is happening and these CEO's need to be held accountable.

          "The wiseman fights for the lost cause, realizing all others are merely affect"

          by acupunk on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 11:51:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that's your goal... (none)

            ...simply make the tax scale more progressive.  The "hard working American" is dependant on his company doing well for better wages and job security.  If the fat cat CEOs piss you off, support higher income and capital gains taxes.  Don't slap around the company just because it did well.

            Punishing the successful gives them less incentive to be that way.  In an age of globalization, we can't afford for our companies to be less competitive.  Saudi Aramco made unspeakable profits, I'm sure.  There's no talk of taxing them, because we can't, they're not a US company.

            Weakening our companies is counter constructive. We need healthy companies for both jobs and a solid tax base.

            •  Who here is against higher taxes on Oil Cartel (none)
              Punishing the succesful is wrong. Rewarding the rapacious is also wrong. Please tell me how high oil prices for ALL INDUSTRY helps keep any company (besides 5) strong.

              Please tell me how the first bill passed in the house post Katrina, a bill that gave billions of dollars to oil companies helps keep companies (besides 5) strong.

              Please tell me how offshoring profits and paying for custom laws to avoid paying taxes keeps hard working Americans strong.

              And finally please explain to me what those things, what are they called, oh yeah LAWS against profiteering, during wartime, BY A NATIONAL SECURITY INDUSTRY are doing on the books.
              You can only fool some of the people some of the time and its much tougher when your hand is in their pocket and their kids are hungry.

              Oilman President record oil profits Uh Huh

              "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

              by buhdydharma on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:14:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Industries see both high and low prices. (none)

                Which are often outside their control.  If we don't help companies at low prices, how are they to prepare for the worst if they can't fill in during high prices?

                The oil industry hasn't always been raking in the dough, for almost a decade, it was in terrible shape.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site