| Author | Post |
|---|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 02:45 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Yep. It was the same as when the current President's grandfather was doing business with the Nazis before WWII. He was eventually forced to stop by the FBI and the Justice Department. He was just a business man doing business to make a profit. The problem was he didn't know that doing business with some people was a problem.
Based on your responses, I guess it would be okay for any American business to sell anything to anybody. Why shouldn't our weapons manufacturers be allowed to sell anything they want to anybody? Terrance. Do you recall Jack Kennedy Sr. dealing with the Nazis not to sink his ships that was transporting Scotch Whiskey? Or did you condone Bill Clinton selling the communist Chinese computer technology through Loral Electronics in exchange for campaign contributions? The Chinese needed it to perfect their missile guidance systems. Now that they have done it, and sold some of it to iran, do you feel confident and safe? Short memory or ADD?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 02:35 pm |
|
| So, you are going back to pre-WWII to find what you consider an example of all these evil big companies doing business against our national interest? If you feel so threatened by business , that's your right. Just don't be disappointed that most people won't share your radical views. You can always rely on the Huffington Post and Moveon.org to have some bloggers who will rabidly agree with you , if that helps.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
| Apples and Oranges. Oil is a commodity, like wheat, rice, beef, etc., not a technology.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Terrance wrote: Hartlyboy wrote: Your neighbors losing their homes and and all that has naught to do with oil company profits. The high price of energy is not due to profits.
All the while, those big corporations are partnering with other countries that wish us harm and would love to bring us under their respective and collective thumbs. What do you call it when businesses or individuals put the well being of their own country second to making money?
Nope, no conspiracy theory there. Just straight-forward reporting of the facts...
Yep. It was the same as when the current President's grandfather was doing business with the Nazis before WWII. He was eventually forced to stop by the FBI and the Justice Department. He was just a business man doing business to make a profit. The problem was he didn't know that doing business with some people was a problem.
Based on your responses, I guess it would be okay for any American business to sell anything to anybody. Why shouldn't our weapons manufacturers be allowed to sell anything they want to anybody?
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: The Democrat "strategy" is dangerous both to national security and our way of life. By their inactivity on the drilling for our own resources they totally ignore the tenuous position we are in. They've been doing it all along since the days of Jimmy carter. They have learned nothing. The French have learned their lessons when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. They also did nothing until the the Arabs imposed a global embargo in 1973. During the 1970's, France was a net electricity importer. They got smart. They now have 59 nuclear reactors that supply 80% of their electricity. Now suppose Iran goes through with their threat to choke off the straights of Hormuz? Reason enough to have our own resources ready and on hand? We have been far too long at the mercy of the environmental gestappo who have p[revented us from a successful energy policy. And, of course, these "greenies" are always backed by the leftist Democrat liberals. They have always blocked us from energy indepoendence by preventing us from developing more nuclear energy. Worldwide nuclear energy use trippled since the 80's and we have been blocked at every turn. There are 443 commercial nuclear plants operating and 31 more ready to be operational in 2013. We know that Iran and N. Korea are ready to go with 3 reactors and China, believe it or not, wants to go to nuclear energy. Thanks to the Democrats and their environmental whackos, we stand around with our thumbs up our asses and argue about drilling. If the idea is to wean off foreign oil dependency, then doesn't it make sense to pursue nuclear and to drill as a security measure?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 04:22 am |
|
Terrance wrote: Hartlyboy wrote: Your neighbors losing their homes and and all that has naught to do with oil company profits. The high price of energy is not due to profits.
All the while, those big corporations are partnering with other countries that wish us harm and would love to bring us under their respective and collective thumbs. What do you call it when businesses or individuals put the well being of their own country second to making money?
Nope, no conspiracy theory there. Just straight-forward reporting of the facts...
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 02:53 am |
|
Bixby wrote: The Democrat "strategy" is dangerous both to national security and our way of life. By their inactivity on the drilling for our own resources they totally ignore the tenuous position we are in. They've been doing it all along since the days of Jimmy carter. They have learned nothing. The French have learned their lessons when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. They also did nothing until the the Arabs imposed a global embargo in 1973. During the 1970's, France was a net electricity importer. They got smart. They now have 59 nuclear reactors that supply 80% of their electricity. Now suppose Iran goes through with their threat to choke off the straights of Hormuz? Reason enough to have our own resources ready and on hand?''' Yes, I think that would be reason enough to utilize our own resources. If Iran does close off Hormuz we, and a good portion of the rest of the world ,would be screwed.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 02:01 am |
|
Bixby wrote: The Democrat "strategy" is dangerous both to national security and our way of life. By their inactivity on the drilling for our own resources they totally ignore the tenuous position we are in. They've been doing it all along since the days of Jimmy carter. They have learned nothing. The French have learned their lessons when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. They also did nothing until the the Arabs imposed a global embargo in 1973. During the 1970's, France was a net electricity importer. They got smart. They now have 59 nuclear reactors that supply 80% of their electricity. Now suppose Iran goes through with their threat to choke off the straights of Hormuz? Reason enough to have our own resources ready and on hand?
This Republican administartion has done more harm to our national security than anything in my lifetime.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:31 pm |
|
The Democrat "strategy" is dangerous both to national security and our way of life. By their inactivity on the drilling for our own resources they totally ignore the tenuous position we are in. They've been doing it all along since the days of Jimmy carter. They have learned nothing. The French have learned their lessons when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. They also did nothing until the the Arabs imposed a global embargo in 1973. During the 1970's, France was a net electricity importer. They got smart. They now have 59 nuclear reactors that supply 80% of their electricity. Now suppose Iran goes through with their threat to choke off the straights of Hormuz? Reason enough to have our own resources ready and on hand?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
What part of the statement taken from your post in its entirety, didn't you say?
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: So, like Chavez, you profess it is best to nationalize oil.................
Terrance wrote:
Certain commodities are vital to the national security. Selling oil is different than selling hula hoops.
Give it a rest. I didn't say that.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:25 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Terrance, if you and Skuda are collectively convinced that a) the numbers being used are all wrong and that b) 'big oil' is trying to harm the country by the way they do business, we have a belief system gap that is too wide to be overcome by reasoned discourse so I'll simply acknowledge we have unresolved issues on facts and you can go on with your conspiracy theories without me raining on your parade. Frankly, I'm sure the 'obscene profits' talking points will play well with the core constituency within your party. Elections are won or lost on perceptions as much as facts so enjoy the pudding you have cooked.....I envy you the effective recipe.
I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but I haven't put forward any conspiracy theories. Obviously you have misinterpreted what I have said, but I cannot imagine why. Unless of course your statement was disingenuous. If that is the case, and you're not up to the task of the discussion, don't blame it on me.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:18 pm |
|
| Terrance, if you and Skuda are collectively convinced that a) the numbers being used are all wrong and that b) 'big oil' is trying to harm the country by the way they do business, we have a belief system gap that is too wide to be overcome by reasoned discourse so I'll simply acknowledge we have unresolved issues on facts and you can go on with your conspiracy theories without me raining on your parade. Frankly, I'm sure the 'obscene profits' talking points will play well with the core constituency within your party. Elections are won or lost on perceptions as much as facts so enjoy the pudding you have cooked.....I envy you the effective recipe.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:04 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: So, like Chavez, you profess it is best to nationalize oil.................
Terrance wrote:
Certain commodities are vital to the national security. Selling oil is different than selling hula hoops.
Give it a rest. I didn't say that.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:10 pm |
|
So, like Chavez, you profess it is best to nationalize oil.................
Terrance wrote:
Certain commodities are vital to the national security. Selling oil is different than selling hula hoops.
|
Courtdog
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
American Energy Yes, Taxes No
But even as some members of the House stand heroically for energy price relief, for reasons beyond my understanding, a group of Republicans in the Senate has signed on to an $85 billion tax increase disguised as an energy bill.
Last week a "Gang of 10" from the Senate - including Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson - announced a "sweeping" energy bill that raises taxes but does little to develop more American energy.
The fact is, if we aggressively pursue new sources of energy, we do not need a tax increase of any kind.
The combination of the following would provide significant new revenues to the federal budget without raising taxes a penny:
New revenue from licensing exploration
New royalties from new discoveries (worth billions to federal and state governments over the next 20 years)
The additional tax revenue from American jobs and American corporate profits from keeping some of the $700 billion a year we currently send overseas here at home
The additional tax revenue from increased profits as lower energy costs enable American companies to be more profitable
The savings to the U.S. government as the largest purchaser of energy from bringing down energy prices through more available domestic energy
Tell your senators to oppose the Gang of Ten tax increase. And if your senator is one of the co-sponsors, ask them to take their name off the bill.
The government has already done enough to raise gas prices. The last thing we need is to pay more taxes.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: The greatest problem with the application of taxes is that the companies being taxed do not pay the taxes -- their customers pay, because the company simply adds that tax onto the prices charged for their products or services.
This is all too true.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having. This now becomes a psychological or philosophical discussion in which most people will fixate on the Billion$ in net profits instead of the achieved or perfectly acceptable 10% net profit margin. In a free and open market system which is not regulated, the government cannot dictate how much profit a business realizes. According to the left wing Democrats, the government can apply a windfall tax to certain profits (ironically for running a smart and successful business) over some imaginary number. This is totally acceptable for you?
Certain commodities are vital to the national security. Selling oil is different than selling hula hoops.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 04:02 pm |
|
The House Energy Revolt and the Revenge of C-SPAN
As I told you last week, a determined group of pro-energy leaders are defying Speaker Pelosi's gag order and staying in Washington. They are staging a revolt on the floor of the House of Representatives - away from the cameras - demanding that Congress return to Washington to provide energy price relief to the American people by allowing the development of more American energy now. (You can see Newt.org's coverage here)
On Wednesday, I met with these leaders to deliver a message of encouragement from the nearly one and a half million Americans who have signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition.
Afterward I held a press conference with pro-energy Representatives. And even though it's banned from covering the speeches on the floor of the House during recess, C-SPAN brought its cameras to a press conference in the Capitol.
Telling the story that the mainstream media has studiously tried to ignore, C-SPAN captured the depth and breadth of support among Americans for developing more American sources of energy - and the outrageous, and ultimately futile, attempt by no-energy liberals to stifle the debate.
(Human Events)
Read the whole op-ed here.
As I argue in my report on the progress of the Platform of the American People, this is just one more example of elite politicians being out of step with the vast majority of the American people. Now, about those so-called superdelegates. George? Oh well.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 668 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
| The greatest problem with the application of taxes is that the companies being taxed do not pay the taxes -- their customers pay, because the company simply adds that tax onto the prices charged for their products or services.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having. This now becomes a psychological or philosophical discussion in which most people will fixate on the Billion$ in net profits instead of the achieved or perfectly acceptable 10% net profit margin. In a free and open market system which is not regulated, the government cannot dictate how much profit a business realizes. According to the left wing Democrats, the government can apply a windfall tax to certain profits (ironically for running a smart and successful business) over some imaginary number. This is totally acceptable for you?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:13 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Your neighbors losing their homes and and all that has naught to do with oil company profits. The high price of energy is not due to profits.
Oil company profits exist within an economy. Exxon's record breaking profits within this economy are happening at a time when many people and businesses within this economy are going under or barely surviving.
So, spin it however you wish. In this finite, geopolitically defined area populated by this aggregate of actors "big" oil isn't hurting. They are awash with profits. They made more "profits" than anybody else. They are king of the hill this last quarter.
All of what you dismiss in one simple sentence above has everything to do with big corporations and the way in which our elected leaders have accomodated them over and over again to our detriment. In absolute fairness, it also has to do with our ignoring what was going on and allowing ourselves to vote in morons based upon political rhetoric that was simply a string of meaningless soundbites.
All the while, those big corporations are partnering with other countries that wish us harm and would love to bring us under their respective and collective thumbs. What do you call it when businesses or individuals put the well being of their own country second to making money?
I agree, Goebbels would have loved it.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 07:44 am |
|
What you all seem to miss is the "accounting" tricks being used to distort the actual percentage of profit being made. All these tricks are according to GAAP and have been in practice for only a few years. The old CPA's are turning in there grave over the changes that have been made in the last few years.
For example up until 1995 or so all intercompany transactions were to be excluded from the financial statements. After 1995 or so the rules were changed to allow a corporation when combining income statements from different corporations they could include same like transactions between the companies. This has the effect of overstating income while leaving profit unchanged.
So when you hear the numbers that an oil company made such and such with only a 10 percent profit do not believe it for a minute. The real percentage will be 30 t0 40 percent higher. The underlying principle behind the numbers is to confuse people and have them believe the profit is low. When you see 100 billion in expenses the actual expenses is really 50 billion.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 04:59 am |
|
Your neighbors losing their homes and and all that has naught to do with oil company profits. The high price of energy is not due to profits.
Using Exxon ,which earned the 10 billion in last quarter, you should have shown the rest of the story which is they had sales of 116 billion to all you thirsty SUV owners and it cost them just under 100 billion in expenses to make it into products you wanted. That left them about 20 billion before income taxes which they paid at 46% which left them roughly 10 billion in profits. But before we feel too bad that we didn't stick it to them nasty oil people enough, those 100 billion of expenses also included about $20 billion of other taxes ,giving us a combined total of about 30 billion in taxes sucked out of that company by people who never did a lick's worth of work , risked a dime or even had to stand in the rain for their 30 billion. That's 30,000,000,000 worth of investors wealth that people who represent you extracted through the tax system for your benefit -and you are whining about a measley 1/3 of that amount going to investors, pension funds and individuals? It's Democrat talking points, nothing more.
Even the term Big Oil is totally misleading . 90% of the oil owned and sold in the world today is by nation states not private companies like Chevron or Exxon. They are Waaay down the scale as far as oil producers and I agree with you that we are therefore very vulnerable to economic and other damage because of the way we are transferring our wealth to regimes who are not necessarily our friends except when they are taking our money. And even that might be starting to change. We are starting to see private nation to nation deals on oil that are taking oil out of the market system that currently defines supply and demand and the price of oil. Rather than tie up more bandwidth here , you might want to do some searches on the Angola/China deal as a small example of what is happening. As that process builds you'll all be pushing those cursed oil companies to drill anywhere we can and telling Congress we can't sell any 'Americun' oil outside our country [not that we do much of that now].
Anyway, enough with the oil profits schtick. Makes for good political theatre but it's just that. And ,sorry, but Goebbels would have loved it...
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 03:02 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: I'm not sure you understand how silly the mantra you and the other libs use about 'outrageous profits' comes across. I own stock in oil companies and other commodity companies and know that oil companies' rate of return is pretty modest compared to some of the other companies. the fact that you have to buy petroleum products over and over means nothing as far as the profit rate. It means it's a big business and even a small profit per sale adds up over a quarter and that makes big numbers which impress the people who don't undersatnd basic economics. From your other postings I suspect you already know that, but feel compelled to further the sound bytes of the far left in hopes it registers with voters if said often enough. Wasn't it Goebbels who said if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth to the beholders?
I disagree with you on this issue and I was okay with what you were saying until you brought in Goebbels. I actually enjoy a challenging conversation.
There is much more to the economics of big oil than people have been willing to discuss. Owning stock in oil companies and the like gives you a monitary interest in this topic. That's okay, but it needs to be stated up front and you have.
Any company that makes a $10,000,000,000 profit in a single quarter has nothing to complain about. How they present the numbers and what numbers they actually present does not mitigate the fact that they made a $10,000,000,000 profit. So excuse me if I choose to see them in a different light than I do my neighbors who have lost their homes or their jobs. Excuse me if I choose to see them in a different light than I do my neighbors who have not lost their homes or their jobs but are paying 2 to 4 times more for heating and electricity. Excuse me if I choose to see them in a different light than I do my neighbors who are unable to afford health care even though they work hard.
I work for a living. I work long hours and I devote my best efforts to providing a quality service at an affordable price. I do well. I do better than most. I really do understand basic economics.
In terms of basic economics, when people are working hard and falling farther and farther behind, something's wrong. That's happening to more and more people today and that's about as basic as it gets. We are spending our wealth abroad and that money is being used to undermine us and, in some cases, actually kill us. That's about as basic as it gets.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:50 am |
|
Do you define outrageous in terms of percentage of sales or just total dollars? In either case the Federal and State governments make more than the Oil companies.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Is "big oil", like "big bank", or "big pharamaceutical"? If so, oil makes a lesser percentage of profit than the other two industries. "Big Car" used to also, "Big Soap"(P&G) still makes a higher percentage of profit.
I guess "Big Oil" is a favorable buzzword with Liberals looking for new sources of income for social "reform".
Terrance wrote:
Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having.
You look to provoke. Unlike other consumer items, we buy gasoline over and over and over. We need oil to do most everything. We are dependent on it and no one knows it better that the "big" oil companies. So excuse me if I do not moan for them while they rake in outrageous profits.
Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 02:03 am by Playing the Game
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:16 am |
|
| I'm not sure you understand how silly the mantra you and the other libs use about 'outrageous profits' comes across. I own stock in oil companies and other commodity companies and know that oil companies' rate of return is pretty modest compared to some of the other companies. the fact that you have to buy petroleum products over and over means nothing as far as the profit rate. It means it's a big business and even a small profit per sale adds up over a quarter and that makes big numbers which impress the people who don't undersatnd basic economics. From your other postings I suspect you already know that, but feel compelled to further the sound bytes of the far left in hopes it registers with voters if said often enough. Wasn't it Goebbels who said if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth to the beholders?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Is "big oil", like "big bank", or "big pharamaceutical"? If so, oil makes a lesser percentage of profit than the other two industries. "Big Car" used to also, "Big Soap"(P&G) still makes a higher percentage of profit.
I guess "Big Oil" is a favorable buzzword with Liberals looking for new sources of income for social "reform".
Terrance wrote:
Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having.
You look to provoke. Unlike other consumer items, we buy gasoline over and over and over. We need oil to do most everything. We are dependent on it and no one knows it better that the "big" oil companies. So excuse me if I do not moan for them while they rake in outrageous profits.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Is "big oil", like "big bank", or "big pharamaceutical"? If so, oil makes a lesser percentage of profit than the other two industries. "Big Car" used to also, "Big Soap"(P&G) still makes a higher percentage of profit.
I guess "Big Oil" is a favorable buzzword with Liberals looking for new sources of income for social "reform".
Terrance wrote:
Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 09:38 pm |
|
One of the problems with the numbers as presented by Bixby is the "fun with accounting" issue.
Suppose I am an oil company that both extracts and refines. I have a revenue stream from the end buyers (the people at the gas station). I also have a revenue stream 'on the books' when my refining division pays my extraction division. This inflates the total revenues of the firm as a large part of Exxon's revenues are receipts from themselves. This may decrease the percentage of profits relative to revenues, but does so in an artificial manner. Oil/energy companies with both functions appear to have been very careful to include internal exchanges as part of their revenue stream. While this is perfectly legal from an accounting perspective, it does distort reality - and reality is in the raw number. $10B+ in quarterly profits is alot of money. Much of this is attributable to the run up in market prices for energy. These firms have made no apparent attempt in the last 30 years to diversify their methods of energy production. It is perfectly reasonable from a national security perspective to expect policies to move the country into other methods of energy production. The easiest way to do this is to tax the method we want to move away from and subsidize the method we want to move toward.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
Bixby, you may be one of a kind. While we are bleeding out of our wallets at the pumps and big oil is posting record breaking phenomenol profits, you are making a case for what a hard time the oil barons are having.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
Oil company profits: A perspective
Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies, recent quarter, 2005
Source: Bloomberg News, reported in AAPG Explorer
Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin
Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33%
Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32%
Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21%
Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14%
General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11%
ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11%
ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8%
IBM $1.5 $21.5 7%
Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7%
Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4%
Oil industry average profit margin is about 8.2%; (3rd Q. '05) for all US industry, the average is about 6.8%.Profits in the oil industry were easily outpaced by those of the Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Household Products, Software, Telecommunications, Semiconductors, Consumer Services, and Food, Beverage and Tobacco sectors.
..............
So if Pelosi deems that "big oil" makes "obscene" profits, what about all these others who make profits far beyond big oil? Do we tax their "windfall" profits too? If you look at the MARGINS, this data is from 2005. Oil makes less of a margin now, somewhere around 4% to 7%.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 05:44 pm |
|
| Who is "gouging" Whom at the Pumps?
Written by JB Williams
Evil Capitalists or Power Hungry Politicians? Washington Democrats rush to exploit yet another hot button issue warming up for the mid-term elections in November - rising oil & gas prices. It is an issue that affects many Americans and Democrats hope to convince those Americans that greedy Bush oil buddies are to blame. But as usual, the real facts are quite different from the bogus campaign rhetoric...
Who is getting rich at the gas pumps?
For starters, many average Americans who hold stock in the oil companies, either directly or indirectly through their 410k or mutual fund. But the fact is, the gross profit margin for a gallon of gas in America today, is what it has always been, on average, .08 cents per gallon, (2.5% at $3.00 per gallon). Though retail gas prices fluctuate with crude prices and supply vs. demand, the gross profit margin per gallon remains roughly the same at all times. (No evidence of price gouging here.)
However the federal government profits approximately .59 cents per gallon through gasoline taxes, 7 ½ times or 750% that of the oil producers themselves and 20% of the price at the pumps. Pay attention here, Washington liberals are attacking oil companies for their 2.5% gross profit margin, while Washington is profiting 20% per gallon. Democrats answer? Tax some more?
If oil companies cut their profit margins by 50%, it would drop the price of a gallon of gas by only .04 cents per gallon. If Washington law makers cut their take by 50%, gasoline would cost .30 cents per gallon less. If the federal government didn’t tax gasoline at all, the price per gallon at the pumps would be $2.40 per gallon instead of $3.00 per gallon and the oil companies would still be at a respectable 2.5% gross profit margin. Who is gouging whom?
Have oil companies sought to inflate gas prices for profit?
If they did, they would have to do it by increasing their per gallon profit margin. Holding their gross margin at 2.5% (.08 cents per gallon) will result in higher overall profits as consumption rises, and both consumption and prices rise during travel seasons. But it does not demonstrate any effort to “gouge” consumers at the pumps.
On the other hand, .59 cents per gallon or 20% of retail gasoline prices is certainly a demonstration of an effort to gouge consumers, but by way of taxation from the federal government. The consumer is in fact being gouged at the pumps and they have been for some years now, by our federal and state governments. Who is gouging whom?
Why have gas prices gone up so much?
They haven’t. Over the last 20 years, gasoline per gallon has increased roughly 60%, which equals an annual average increase of only 3%, which is less than the average rate of inflation.
During the same 20 year period however, the salary of every member of Congress has increased 250% or 12.5% per year. More than four times the average rate of inflation. Who is gouging whom? Who looks greedy now?
Are Americans specifically being gouged by OPEC?
Quite the opposite. The most expensive places in the world to buy gas are The Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Denmark and Belgium, all of which are now above $7.00 per gallon at the pumps. Of course, all of which are socialist governments with even heavier taxes per gallon than America.
The least expensive places in the world are Venezuela, Nigeria, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, ranging between .15 cents and .95 cents per gallon at their pumps. That’s because these are the largest oil saturated countries in the world.
America is the single largest consumer of oil products, yet our retail prices are very average in the world market, despite excessive federal taxation. Who is gouging whom?
Where does all the money go?
Based upon a $3.00 gallon of gasoline, the average break-down is as follows.
Gasoline Retailer $.01 cents per gallon
Oil Company $.08 cents per gallon
Refining $.29 cents per gallon
Marketing/Distribution $.32 cents per gallon
Taxes $.59 cents per gallon
Cost of crude $1.71 per gallon (delivered)
Who is gouging who?
Why is there a wide price variation between locations?
Gasoline is used by American retailers as a “loss leader” product. A means of attracting consumers into their retail establishment with at best a “break even” product, in an effort to sell other goods and services at a profit. This keeps prices at the pump as low as possible through open competition. The local stations with nothing but gas to sell will be higher per gallon on average of course.
State to state, additional gasoline taxes and refining requirements as well as distance from the closest refinery are the largest factors. California is particularly high due to their excessive taxation and environmental blend requirements as an example. These added refining requirements also means that California experiences more shortages than any other state. When they run low on supply, they can not import from a neighboring state without violating their more stringent state environmental codes. So who is gouging whom?
The Democrats answer to every problem, tax it some more?
Smelling blood in the political waters in an election year makes every issue a campaign issue perfect for exploitation and current consumer complaints over prices at the pumps is no exception.
Democrats call for an all out attack on those greedy rich oil companies, which is like throwing red meat to their blue state socialist constituents who see not only corporate greed, but capitalism itself as the root of all evil in the world.
Their answer to high gasoline prices? Launch yet another “independent” (partisan) investigation into high gasoline prices during an election year when winning congressional seats in Washington might be the only thing that can save their failed party from extinction.
But will attacking the group making the least on a gallon of gas, the group responsible for ongoing exploration and production of gasoline, solve the problem? Should some new “windfall-profit” tax aimed at penalizing American companies for turning a profit be imposed?
In a word, NO! This attitude is the cause of the problem to the degree you can prove any real problem exists at all. If we should penalize oil companies for making .08 cents per gallon gross profit, how much should we penalize our federal government for making .59 cents per gallon?
Corporations don’t pay taxes!
They do collect and remit taxes. But every penny of taxes placed on corporate income is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher retail prices, just like the .59 cents per gallon of federal taxes being collected on behalf of the federal government at the pumps today.
So will electing Democrats who hope to tax gasoline (or any corporate entity) even more help curb prices at the pump, the supermarket or anywhere else? If so, I’d sure like to hear how?
How do you think gasoline got to be .59 cents per gallon higher than need be? How do you think our government got to the point of consuming nearly 60% of GDP in the first place?
You show me where the problem is and who is doing the endless gouging of average Americans?
Is it the oil companies at .08 cents per gallon? Or is it the government at .59 cents per gallon, for producing absolutely nothing?
Democrats seek to increase gasoline taxes beyond the current .59 cent per gallon level. Can you explain how this will reduce prices at the pump? No…nobody can.
But you can sure demonstrate how the BS drives Bush further down in the polls... and that’s the real goal.
|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Normal procedure? With a world of sh*t around us they call this normal? Dont they think that the energy "crisis" is important enough to stay in session and come up with some kind of remedy? This is a crisis they themselves defined. They could have and should have stayed. mI think that the Democrats are going to lose something on this one.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7174 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 04:10 pm |
|
No, it wasn't clever. It was a normal procedure. As the White House itself said, it was pretty much a useless show by the Republicans STRICTLY for grand standing.
As for the vacation....as you know, all Congresspeople have quite a lot of work to do at their home station AND the fact that all members of the House are up for election this fall. Like it or not, they need to get back to campaign, as well.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:20 pm |
|
When House Speaker Pelosi abruptly and literally turned off the lights in Congress on August 1st and sent the members on a five-week vacation, she thought she was doing something clever.
C-SPAN can only broadcast Congress while Congress is in session. If there was no session, there would be no cameras to cover the debate over providing relief to American families from historically high gas prices.
If there were no C-SPAN, Americans would never get to see the Speaker and the anti-energy left's stubborn refusal to lift the ban on offshore drilling, refusal to lift the ban on drilling in ANWR, and refusal to lift the ban on oil shale development.
If there were no C-SPAN, thought the Speaker, there would be no debate.
But last week, C-SPAN - with the help of some pro-energy Representatives - made sure they were still America's eyes and ears to the debate.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
Published Aug 11 2008 by Energy Bulletin
Archived Aug 11 2008 The offshore drilling mirage by Rolf E. Westgard Spurred on by Senator McCain’s July 28 promise that offshore oil “could be exploited in a matter of months”, the clamor to start poking more expensive holes in the ocean floor has reached a crescendo. In the U.S. Senate, the bipartisan “Gang of 10” is leading the drive for more drilling as the solution to high oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil. Even Senator Obama is succumbing to the myth that drilling offshore is something new for the U.S. which will quickly make us awash in oil.
There is a reason that oil production companies are called E&Ps, exploration and production, with the exploration part listed first. A very small fraction of the earth’s surface has a useful oil reservoir beneath it. If you randomly set several hundred drilling rigs to work, either on land or sea, few, if any, would find one decent oil reservoir. That’s why extensive analysis of subsurface geologic structure, with techniques like 3-D seismic, precedes drilling in the ocean floor with one of those $450,000/day drill ships.
For the most part, we don’t have good analysis of the strata off our Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska coasts. We have better data in the very active Gulf of Mexico which was the subject of Minerals Management Service (MMS) sale #205 in October, 2007. Eighty four oil companies submitted $2.9 billion in high bids on 1723 tracts totaling 3,729,000 acres. MMS continued its aggressive leasing in 2008 with sales #206 and #224 in the Gulf and #193 in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.
Those sales produced high bids of $4.3 billion for 1,139 blocks by 85 companies. Two more sales are planned in 2008, one in Alaska and one in the Gulf. Most of these leases will be banked, along with others awarded before 2008, because there aren’t seismic and drilling resources to work them. In July of 2008, 1922 drilling rigs were at work in the U.S., on and offshore, the highest total in years.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses the term “technically recoverable undiscovered oil” to refer to oil which might be recovered even at very high cost. The EIA currently estimates 59 billion barrels of such undiscovered oil in the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf. Of this, two-thirds, 40.92 billion barrels, are available for leasing and development. The EIA further indicates that additional “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030.”
As to the Arctic, the five countries which border the Arctic Ocean have been actively exploring for oil and gas. Two recent studies, one by two leading geoscience firms and one by the USGS, have reviewed the results so far. Both studies note that three-fourths of the successful discoveries are mostly natural gas. There are no pipelines to bring down this stranded gas, and there won’t be one for at least ten years.
The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) is situated between the oil of Prudhoe Bay, and Canada’s Mackenzie Delta with its large natural gas deposits.
There is no good data on whether ANWR will produce oil, natural gas, or
nothing like Mukluk, the world’s costliest dry hole just 30 miles northwest of the Prudhoe Bay discovery. In any case, the short winter season at ANWR for seismic and test well drilling, plus the short summer season for ship transport of heavy equipment, validates EIA’s estimate that it will be at least ten years before we see any oil or gas from ANWR. The ice roads used by oil equipment trucks in Alaska used to last for 200 days during the 1970s. Today it is closer to 100 days as the region warms. ANWR can be developed without harming the caribou; the real problem is that ANWR may not have much oil.
The EIA is forecasting that offshore production from existing and future new leases will approximately cover the decline in our mature oil fields to 2030. A reduction in oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil will not be found on our Outer Continental Shelf.
That reduction will require innovative new sources of energy, conservation, and significant adjustments in the way we use energy for transportation.
Rolf E. Westgard St Paul
(The writer is professional member of the Geological Society of America and a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists)
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7174 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
Then, CR, how come you kept saying Drill, Drill and ignored anything else I said?
I suspect if I went back over your first 50 posts, there would be nothing but pushing drilling, and ignoring any other solution.
However, I am glad to see that you and Nancy are beginning to come around to reality.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:06 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: No Fred, YOU have been screaming that the Republicans are only screaming DRILL DRILL DRILLLLLLLLL. The Republican party has been calling for a program that begins with drilling to put the plan into motion to solve our current crisis. In conjunction with the drilling process, we develop a long term strategy.
In terms you might understand...... Your chief competitor just released a system that buries you in the dust. You respond with a quick fix while you develop a long term strategy.
In military terms,, the enemy just blew away your ammo dump and you need to battle back with everything you have until you can replace what you lost.
Now do you get it?
Using less gasoline seems like a really good, really immediate short term fix. We've cut our usage significantly and the price has dropped.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:23 am |
|
No Fred, YOU have been screaming that the Republicans are only screaming DRILL DRILL DRILLLLLLLLL. The Republican party has been calling for a program that begins with drilling to put the plan into motion to solve our current crisis. In conjunction with the drilling process, we develop a long term strategy.
In terms you might understand...... Your chief competitor just released a system that buries you in the dust. You respond with a quick fix while you develop a long term strategy.
In military terms,, the enemy just blew away your ammo dump and you need to battle back with everything you have until you can replace what you lost.
Now do you get it?
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:32 am by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7174 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:14 pm |
|
No, they haven't. They've been screaming DRILL, DRILL to solve the current gas prices, future gas prices, energy independence, and to prevent alien invasion. THAT is why they threw the temper tantrum...the ONLY thing they want is the leases, and if they got that, they would not do anything else.
Do you want me to go back and find where I first said we should consider it as part of a comprehensive energy policy....and the responses I got from it over and over again?
Remember, these are the same type of folks who seriously think that the President meaninglessly lifting the restrictions on the off shore area caused the price to drop.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
There was an interesting piece on the news earlier. It talked about the restrictions China put on driving and other things to reduce polution for the Olympics - apparently Beijing has the worst air pollution on the planet. These restrictions have resulted in a significant drop in gasoline consumption over there. These restrictions will be lifted after the games.
These restrictions have also contributed to the recent drop in oil costs. So what we are seeing now in the reduced price for a barrel of crude is the result of our cutting back because of the $4/gal cost and China's cutting back because of the Olympics.
The prices will resume going up soon. The news I was watching was business related. They also reported, unfortunately, that as the price of a gallon of gasoline has dropped the demand for economical cars is starting to drop as well.
If we really want to keep the price of gasoline down, we have a great object lesson here - reduce demand. Aside from saving us money, it will improve our air quality. Do you think we will let this sink in and adjust our behaviors or do you think we will simply ignore this and resume our complaining when the prices starts to go back up?
I guess I'm asking if the American consumer is educable.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
Fred wrote: (CNN) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reversed her opposition to a vote on offshore drilling on "Larry King Live" on Monday night, saying she would consider a vote if it were part of a larger energy package.
Exactly what I've bee |