Obama


Swatguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Profits are still profits.

In a changing economy like we have... Profit Margins don't mean squat.

Here's the situation.

Exxon used to make a lot more when the economy was good.

Exxon doesn't make as much as it used to now that the economy is bad.

Why does that matter. Profit is still profit.

It's an outrage that we have an oil based economy and now that the economy is becoming sour, the oil companies are still gouging the consumers...

In other words, I'm not against oil companies making money. However, it seems like this is more than that. Exxon and these other companies are gouging for one reason and one reason only...

India and China...

When the demand goes down on India and China's gas, the price that the arabs are selling the oil will have to come down. When that price comes down, it will be impossible for Oil companies to continue to get great profits.

So continue your profit margin BS. It means nothing to compare what a company makes in profits now vs. 10 years ago. The point is, it's still a profit during a bad economic time and that profit is rapidly killing this nation.

Here's my proposal...

A Nation owned Oil company.

1. It creates jobs because you have to build refineries and staff them.

2. The power and the name of the US can strike a better deal with Arabs (the same way that India did... (they are paying $80.00 a barrel; our oil companies $135).

3. If there's a profit, it can go back into the economy.

4. It puts a new player in the game to keep those who have a Pact-Monopoly honest. Hell, you may even put them out of business if you get enough refineries on-line.

Go ahead and call me a Marxist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL!! You are what you are Diesel. I don't care one way or the other what you think. I just think it's sad that you are filled with such animosity for free enterprise and believe the government is the solution to all of the problems of society. As for me, I'll continue to believe in freedom and the individual, something you have no faith in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


The first step to fixing the economy is not oil. It is giving tax breaks to big American and foreign businesses who choose to use American workers and taking away tax breaks from business that use international and non- American workers.

The first two steps to fixing the economy is:

1. Ending the war (528 Billion dollars so far... and rapidly climbing.)

2. Closing down the border and stopping illegal immigration at the corporate level.

These two points are just throwing money down the drain.

Once we do that however, let's start taxing everybody. And when I say that, I'm talking about more than just the middle class. Tax the rich. Tax the ultra rich. Tax every worker. Tax those who have VISAs. It's a shame that everytime the republicans take office, they try this same old trickle down economy and they have sold this BS to people and people have bought it hook line and sinker. Trickle down didn't work during Reagan's era. Trickle down didn't work for Daddy Bush. Trickle down didn't work for W... The funny thing with Bush 43's administration is that he actually caused the worse unemployment in history and then when people started getting unskilled workers positions, he procliamed success....Lose your house, but here's a $600.00 check. He may as well have just given that directly to the oil companies.

That's step 3.

Oil companies and their windfall profits.

The oil companies have been allowed to manipulate the market far worse than telephone companies could have in the early 80s. If they all agree to do what is necessary to keep prices high (and make profits) then it's a monopoly.

The fair tax would tax everybody. The only people who would, at the end of each month, essentially not pay any taxes are the poor. The rebate check would go to every family/household to cover the consumption tax for the basic necessities of life. A tax plan that completely eliminates the poor from taxes at all. Sounds right up your alley!

I love the fair tax b/c it is the only way to tax these drug dealers making a million year and spending almost all of it without any federal income tax. Now all their bling-bling, rims, speakers, and other showey junk would actually help the country out tax wise when they buy all their crap.

Not to mention all the illegal immigrants being paid under the table can actually pitch into american society and help foot the bill with all new schools we have built for them free of charge to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Profits are still profits.

In a changing economy like we have... Profit Margins don't mean squat.

Go ahead and call me a Marxist.

You obviously don't know much about business.

so if:

company A had a $10,000,000 profit

company B had a $10,000,000 profit

It took Company A $100 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

It took company B only $50 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

Would you just randomply pick which one to buy stock in without looking at profit margin ? Hell No ! Well, unless you just don't have a clue you might.

I don't know about you but company B is looking twice good though they have the same "profit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget tourists. Everybody visiting would pay as well...assuming they buy anything while they're here.

Also to add to the oil debate. What Diesel and those who think as he does, seem to not realize is that a lot of everyday "working people" like myself who are doing whatever they can to at least fund a roth ira so that my family will have something in retirement to live on instead of relying on government welfare programs are the people who are the real owners of the oil companies. In fact, most of the ownership of the oil companies is through brokerage houses where "working class" people making around $50, 000 buy mutual funds or individual shares in hopes it will pay off for them. So, out of ignorance, the very people who engage in class warfare and love to hate the evil rich oil companies and their "windfall profits"(what exactly is too much profit anyway) are attacking the very people they champion as being beaten down by the oil companies. But, I'm not surprised. Empty wagons make a lot of noise as a high school teacher of mine once said repeatedly....a black woman teacher at that, Diesel, who loved me and I admired. Damn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Quote:


Profits are still profits.

In a changing economy like we have... Profit Margins don't mean squat.

Go ahead and call me a Marxist.

You obviously don't know much about business.

so if:

company A had a $10,000,000 profit

company B had a $10,000,000 profit

It took Company A $100 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

It took company B only $50 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

Would you just randomply pick which one to buy stock in without looking at profit margin ? Hell No ! Well, unless you just don't have a clue you might.

I don't know about you but company B is looking twice good though they have the same "profit."

Coach, we're not taking revenue here. We're talking about the take that you get after the expenses have been paid. That's profit. Sure, you would like to see bigger companies make more profits... but in a sagging economy... bigger companies making close to the amount of profits as they did when the economy was good means either one of two things.

1. They have a product that can't be beat.

2. They are sticking it to the consumer.

This is what you and Eddie have to understand.

A 45 billion dollar profit is not a loss.

It's less than what you used to get margin wise, but at the end of the day, you bring home lots of money... at the nations expense.

Now... let's bring you two back to reality:

Quote:


Feb 1, 2008 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation.

Yeah... just check the increase in gas prices by the travel season... And keep trying to convince yourself.. "it's all legit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

tsk, tsk, tsk... More of your racism?

So now that just because I'm against price gouging.. I'm on welfare?

I'm not surprised Eddie. Not in the least.

I think you'd best try to understand the framework of what I and "those who think as I do" are saying. It's not about personal tragedy. Everybody ought to gamble a little in the stock market.

It's that you need to see the bigger picture blind man. The Economy (all of it) has it's basis in Oil. The funny thing is that if the bottom falls out because of this death grip that Oil has on the world... your investments won't mean squat either.

Right now, you should be hoping and praying that the markets in China and India remain strong. They copied our oil based market and with less experience, they are in trouble too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Also thank you to all the bibble belt inbreeds who voted for him the second time.

When you insult someone's intelligence and decision making, background, etc. it would probably be more effective to at least make sense and spell words correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't define racism. IF you believe me to be such then you are creating your own definition. How little you would feel if you really knew me instead of letting opposing opinions on a message board get your boxers in such a bunch. The sad fact is you spew more hatred towards me than I have ever posted towards you or any fellow squawker. I have strong beliefs that piss plenty off here but I never attack people personally for their opinions and call them trite little names like you do. That's okay, you're the one keeping hawksquawk going anyway. WE're all just lucky to be part of your hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate here guys.

I am reading a book by Jeffery Sachs, who is a Nobel Prize winning economist and someone who stays a-political in his assessments. The book is called Common Wealth. Liberal or Conservative or Moderate, I think you all might find it an interesting read. I have some issues with his proposals, but that is going to be true of anyone's work.

I think the biggest take home message in terms of economic policy is that any cost structure with goods should reflect their total costs. He also suggests some interesting tax structures that also reflect the social and environmental costs of any activity. E.g., having to use tax dollars to clean up after toxic waste spills by now defunct companies. I am doing an injustice to the elegant arguments he makes, so don't take what I say as verbatum what Sachs is actually proposing.

At any rate, I thought the book could clarify some of the back and forth going here that is based off paritisan web sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


So your saying that the millions of blacks who voted this year that didnt vote before there was a black candidate are not racist BECAUSE there will be whites that are going to vote for McCain because they dont want a black President? What kind of half ayss logic is that? Both groups ARE RACIST. Just because there will be alot of racist whites who dont vote for Obama because he is black doesnt excuse the blacks who didnt vote before that are voting now BECAUSE Obama is BLACK from being RACIST. I agree there are alot of whites who wont vote for a black President. I agree that is already documented that millions of black voters voted for the 1st time because there is a black candidate. Guess what BOTH GROUPS ARE RACIST. Stop hideing behind a double standard.

Quote:


Survey's say, not only are there significant "new" Black voters also there are significant "new" White voters. There is a lkegion of young White voters voting and supporting Obama. For decades there have been black voters voting in White candidates.

Quote:


And that is the big deal. The big deal is not that he is Black

Quote:


So much time and rhetoric is wasted because Obama is Black.

Quote:


Look out, a lot of White people support Obama. Just as many Black people support Whites.

It is time to get over bigotry

Obama's momma is a white lady. Why is it when people of mixed ethnicity get on they must only identify with one race either by choice (Halle Berry) or by the portrayals of the media (Tiger Woods)?

Obama is not simply "black."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


You can't define racism. IF you believe me to be such then you are creating your own definition. How little you would feel if you really knew me instead of letting opposing opinions on a message board get your boxers in such a bunch. The sad fact is you spew more hatred towards me than I have ever posted towards you or any fellow squawker.

No.. I won't say that you're a racism. You are more like a person who constantly propagates the stereotypes that racist feed you. It almost makes me wonder... Can you think for yourself? Really? Do you think for yourself?? Every other post, I get a Rush Limbaugh Sound bite with racial overtones? How is that supposed to be addressed? Maybe I shouldn't call you anything and just let your dribble slide down the bottomless pit of stupidity that you have built? However, part of being here is sharing our respective opinions... and opinions are built up from experiences and cultures. So what's your opinion of people really saying?

Is this hatred? Maybe it is? Maybe I'm being hateful towards Eddie. Eddie I'm sorry.

I was only trying to point out the times that you dribbled more of your stereotypes...Maybe the Eddies of this world need no correction? I mean, is there anything wrong with an ignorant Eddie? I guess not. We'll just let you continue to work on your pit my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


having to use tax dollars to clean up after toxic waste spills by now defunct companies.

That is interesting.

In the best country in the world... Should we have to use tax dollars to clean up after defunct companies?

My question is who owned the companies and where are they and their benefactors?

I guess the real question is do the Nation owe the taxpayers living without Toxic waste?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Why is it when people of mixed ethnicity get on they must only identify with one race either by choice (Halle Berry) or by the portrayals of the media (Tiger Woods)?

It's born out of the racist history of the United States:

Quote:


The 1910–19 decade was the nadir of the Jim Crow era by most measures. Tennessee adopted a one-drop statute in 1910. It was followed by Louisiana the same year, Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirtysecond) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto. By 1925, almost every state had a one-drop law on the books, or something equivalent.[citation needed] These laws gave justification to bureaucrats like Walter Plecker of Virginia, Naomi Drake of Louisiana, and similar people around the country, who insisted on labeling families of mixed ancestry as Black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Profits are still profits.

In a changing economy like we have... Profit Margins don't mean squat.

Go ahead and call me a Marxist.

You obviously don't know much about business.

so if:

company A had a $10,000,000 profit

company B had a $10,000,000 profit

It took Company A $100 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

It took company B only $50 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

I don't know about you but company B is looking twice good though they have the same "profit."

Coach, we're not taking revenue here. We're talking about the take that you get after the expenses have been paid. That's profit. Sure, you would like to see bigger companies make more profits... but in a sagging economy... bigger companies making close to the amount of profits as they did when the economy was good means either one of two things.

1. They have a product that can't be beat.

2. They are sticking it to the consumer.

This is what you and Eddie have to understand.

A 45 billion dollar profit is not a loss.

It's less than what you used to get margin wise, but at the end of the day, you bring home lots of money... at the nations expense.

Now... let's bring you two back to reality:

Quote:


Feb 1, 2008 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation.

Yeah... just check the increase in gas prices by the travel season... And keep trying to convince yourself.. "it's all legit."

Don't even try to play this game with me. My post demonstrated the difference in revenue and profit.

Your the guy that said profits are profits without any reguard to the profit margin where expenses are realted to gross revenue.

Below was my demonstration from the thread you referenced:

"so if:

company A had a $10,000,000 profit

company B had a $10,000,000 profit

It took Company A $100 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit

It took company B only $50 million in expenses to turn a $10,000,000 profit "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


having to use tax dollars to clean up after toxic waste spills by now defunct companies.

That is interesting.

In the best country in the world... Should we have to use tax dollars to clean up after defunct companies?

My question is who owned the companies and where are they and their benefactors?

I guess the real question is do the Nation owe the taxpayers living without Toxic waste?

The Super Fund does exactly that. I should have referenced it directly. Sachs point is that all items have hidden costs, such as waste disposal, that need to be included in the cost so that consumers can make real informed decisions about what they buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesel don't try to pretend like you understand the gas crises by just saying saying don't tell me something funny is not going on. Read this and learn something.

The global economy is what is driving up the price of gas and not America or its politicians.

1.) Its also the big banks buying "futures" in oil by the barrell. This where the price of oil today is $145 a barrell. A bank may buy "futures" in gas at $170 a barrell. Then my no coincidence this same bank will come out with a high projections of where they estimate oil will go up to $200 barrell in an attempt to drive up the price. They do this b/c every dollar oil goes up over $170 a barrell is profit to them since they have a locked in price at $170/barrell but if oil prices stay steady or go down they loose ALOT of money and whoever made that buy on "futures" is fired. This is why banks are constantly over stating their projections of oil by the barrell. (Banks are also at fault in large part for the housing crisis but I will cover that another day, this is a sports forum after all.)

2.) Now back to the global economy / oil:

Just 5 years ago India, South America, Africa, and China were not using nearly the amount of gas they use now. Global demand has shot through the roof while he supply has remained steady / this is just Economics 101. With a global economy its the rest of the world's growing energy needs that are driving the prices up. The USA is just a blimp on the screen. America is not the center of the universe and we cannot control everything in a global economy...though many Americans think we do.

This is why it is essential that we harvest our own oil off the coast of Florida and in Alaska. Too bad the democrats voted against us being able to this 50-200 miles off the coast. It failed 9 votes to 6 in order to go to the House floor where all Reps would vote. Funny how the 9 no's were all democrats and the 6 yes votes were from Republicans. If you don't like this please write your local representative.

3.) Sure we need to invest in finding alternate energy as both McCain and Obama say repeatedly but that "new" source is 20 years away minimum. What about right now ?

Go ahead and start building some more refiners in the good ole USA and lets use some of our own oil. Then in 20 years hopefully all the research for new energy sources pays off.

4.) BTW:

The cost of refining gas could be greatly reduced if we did not have to refine oi to 87 octane, 89 octane, 92 octane, 93 octane, etc.

Limit it to 2 types, 87 octane and 93 octane for example. This would greatly reduce the cost of refining oil.

5.) BTW: New energy supplies will be found by the country's most gifted students. Do you all realize that the public school systems shells out $5 in special education programs to every $1 when compared to gifted programs...a 5/1 ratio is unacceptable and we wonder why families struggle to send save money to send their kids to private schools........This should be especially upsetting to the families who CAN'T afford pvt schools b/c if your child is indeed gifted they will not get what they need in the public school system...........Where are this country's great thinkers of the future going to come from if we are more interested in letting "handicapped" children know their ABC's and get high school diplomas that mean nothing other then making them feel better about themselves then helping the best students America has to offer the necessary assets to reach their potential. We constantly hear how Asia and Europes gifted studensts out perform our own. This should not be a secret why. Asia and Europe poor money and special treatment to their gifted students where is America is more concerned with the sports players and handicapped kids then the kid's with the best minds. America needs to wake up and forget about all this political correctness and make the choices that make practical sense. America is doing itself a diservice to our country's future. (My little brother is a special education teacher so I know all about his side of the discussion but a $5/ $1 dissparity is simply unacceptable.

I am by no means an expert or a professional economist (just took some business classes like many of you have and love to study stocks, investments, and the global market almost as much as sports). So many poster's want to throw in their 2 cents.....I hope this helps some of you see the big picture. After all, forming and opinion without much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one problem with drilling the ANWAR is that it will take 5-10 years to come online and then only provide between 6 months and 2 years of fuel. This is good for the folks who own the drilling rights, but in terms of reducing the cost of fuel, at best it will drop prices by 2-6 cents in today's prices. So, I don't see the point.

There real issue is that there is plenty of oil for right now, but investors paniced, combigned with the tensions in the ME, the extremely weak dollar, and steadily increasing global demand (though its only about 10% growth rate right now) have lead to increased prices.

So, yes, like anything the current situation is the resutl of multiple factors coming into play. I however, don't think that drilling new holes in places like the ANWAR provide the relief that some make it out to be. The ANWAR is just a fighting point for all sides of the debate.

FWIW, there are several solutions available today, such as coal liquidification. The issue is getting someone to invest in the plants. Is the process expensive? Sure, but the price per gallon of refined gas is coming in line with current fuel costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.