You are Big oil

[Bong30]

This is great


Nobama wants a WINDFALL profit tax on big oil

give you a 1000 bucks...... I could use it Ill tell ya, BUT



Ask your MOM and DAD, look at you prospectus, statement, whatever......

If you have a 401k



YOU ARE BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



so Nobama wants to take money from you,to give to you.....


He is so stupid



discuss you are big oil, and if you were smart you would have bought oil low and sold it high.....ahhh the American Dream:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

What's up Bong30? Long time no see. Remember me?

Kind of hard to understand exactly what your post is about here though... care to elaborate?


I am happy to interject here to help you understand what his post is about.
Barak Insane Osama, wants to TAKE money from the demonized "BIG OIL" and REDISTRIBUTE that wealth to the "less fortunate". You know, socialism, which apparently is one of the key points of liberalism today.
You know, as if there is only a certain amount of money available to be had in the world, and the BIG OIL DEMONS have taken it all. Because in Obama land that means there is no money left for the "poor".
Never mind that they earn that money, never mind that they employ Americans, never mind that Americans are shareholders in those "BIG OIL" companies and that would in turn hurt whom? NOT BIG OIL, they will just turn around and share that burden with all of us. And I am 99% sure that he is not planning on taking those "windfall" profits and investing in future energy (as the oil companies have and do since that is there business,) but he would instead hand the money out to people that will gladly take it and blow it on plasma t.v.s, and paps blue ribbon or whatever.
As far as profit margins are concerned "THE EVIL BIG OIL" is far from the top of that list. They have to invest in themselves, but most kool aid drinking libs love the idea of "sticking it to the man" and blindly believe what they are told to believe, hence the popularity of this horrible idea he has put forth. He knows this and this is nothing more than an attempt to hit people on an emotional level during hard economic times. Kool aid drinkers are real happy to think they are going to take money from THE EVIL BIG OIL, and of course are convinced that they are entitled to it. This also plays on the "entitlement mentality" that is so prevalent within the liberal left.
Here are some other industries that should worry about their future as well if we are going to start taking money businesses earn when we demonize them or "feel" (since that's what all good liberal policies are based on) have EARNED too much.
BIG DAIRY
BIG COFFEE
BIG PAPER
ECT...
ECT.....
I believe that was along the lines of the point he was trying to make.:thumbsup:
So if you are ready for "change", then vote for Obama, if you are ready to live in a country that demonizes success, individuality, independant thought, then he's your man.:D

[Bong30]

Hey Bill,
sure I remeber you.....


what my post was about.

Liberals, and the liberal left media has villified BIG OIL. When you get right down to it. Any person that owns stock by way of thier 401K witch most people have. They are big oil. They are the share holder that the company is trying to make a profit for.

I know socialist wont like this....

The only job of a publicly traded company is to make a profit for its share holders.


Seams BIG OIL is doing a damn good job......:thumbsup:



how did big oil do in the 80s?

[khronik]

I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up, while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint. I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet. But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So is the premise of this thread that everybody, or even most, who recieve the $1000 tax rebate are in fact shareholders in oil companies? And I suppose the taxes based on profit limits will result in a stock dip so steep that it will result in a whole thousand dollar loss for each shareholder?



I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.


This particular plan of Obama's will do very little if anything, but you'd have to be a fool to think the Republican economic policies have been any wiser. McSame was all ready to jump on the 3-month gas-tax break that would amount to a mammoth $34 savings for the average American. Nothing but a little (illusionary) gift to buy some votes, while not actually accomplishing anything to fix a broken economy.


Democrat or Republican, Americans still seem bent on voting for the safe 'ol candidates that will tweak the status quo while the nation circles the drain. Of course you get anybody with some fiscal responsibility and actual respect for the constitution (aka, Ron Paul), and joe-schmo voter thinks you're an "extremist" for actually taking the action necessary to bring about the real change that they keep demanding but refuse to vote for.

[khronik]

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil)
This isn't where I read it originally, but it's related.

I am sorry that I have no link to the original material, it was months ago.

I am also sorry if you feel that Wikipedia is liberally biased, in which case just ignore this post. :stoned:
Sorry, I meant to quote the OP, not you. Hell, I agree with you.

[8182KSKUSH]

I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up, while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint. I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet. But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.


Sorry, I meant to quote the OP, not you. Hell, I agree with you.


I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you meant to knock me on those posts?
I am wondering what exactly you want "sources" for? My post was my opinion, so the source is me. Feel free to pick out exactly what you want a "source" for though if you want.
From what I can tell, everyone here has a "biased" view, based on your personal political beliefs. So if my belief that taking money from people that EARNED IT TO BEGIN WITH and giving to people that DID NOTHING TO EARN IT, is "biased" then so be it. Why don't you start sending me half of all the money you earn if you want to! LMFAO!:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

So is the premise of this thread that everybody, or even most, who recieve the $1000 tax rebate are in fact shareholders in oil companies? And I suppose the taxes based on profit limits will result in a stock dip so steep that it will result in a whole thousand dollar loss for each shareholder?


I don't think that's the premise here, at least that's not what I took from it, and that's not at all what I was trying to argue. I am simply pointing out that "Big OL' MEan OIL" does have shareholders, and if the gov starts to just take money they make, then yes, that will have a direct and significant impact on all shareholders, shareholders being, Americans that work for the companies, that invest in the companies, and Americans that purchase their goods and services.

Big Oil is not a person, (not speaking to you Gandalf, this is more for everyone else that likely do not comprehend this concept.) If you take the profits from a corporation or company, then they will simply make up for those lost profits by passing on the "costs" to us. So hello! If you get a grand from the gov that they took from "Big Oil, or Big Rice, or Big Paper, or Big Coffee, then these companies will simply make up for the difference by charging more for their goods. So yeah, you may want to hang onto that "Big Oil" money if you get it folks, you'll need it to buy your gas @ 9.00 a gallon.

[8182KSKUSH]

I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.


Big difference here, the money Bush sent to people was their money to begin with! The money wasn't stolen from a company that earned it and then given to people that had nothing to do with earning it. The money Bush gave out was money that Americans had given to the federal gov in the form of income taxes. Hence, "income tax rebate". Now whether or not it helped the economy, who knows? That's debatable. But fact is that money belonged to the people to begin with!

[ldg420]

Big difference here, the money Bush sent to people was their money to begin with! The money wasn't stolen from a company that earned it and then given to people that had nothing to do with earning it. The money Bush gave out was money that Americans had given to the federal gov in the form of income taxes. Hence, "income tax rebate". Now whether or not it helped the economy, who knows? That's debatable. But fact is that money belonged to the people to begin with!

Dead on!!!!! couldn't have said it better myself:stoned:

[ldg420]

Where did all you guys come from anyway? Bitter Ron Paul supporters that took a crash course in libertarian philosophy?

no i prefer to think we came from America and our views are based on logic rather that speculation. the windfall bs tax thing will only hurt americans in the long run, no matter how you look at it Obama is the fastest way we can convert to socialism.......do you want that?:stoned:

[khronik]

no i prefer to think we came from America and our views are based on logic rather that speculation. the windfall bs tax thing will only hurt americans in the long run, no matter how you look at it Obama is the fastest way we can convert to socialism.......do you want that?:stoned:
Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians.

I like logic, but I don't understand why you think your position is necessarily the logical one.

As for socialism, where do you think this quote came from?


"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discoveryâ?¦We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
Yeah, Barack said it. It actually headlines his economic policy paper. Nobody seriously advocates socialism these days. Since you're someone who claims to be logical, let's look at this quote:

no matter how you look at it Obama is the fastest way we can convert to socialism
And no matter how you look at it, turning on the tap is the fastest way we can flood our house.

[8182KSKUSH]

Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined....


That's perfect!!! So glad you posted that right before I made my post!
LMFAO!!!

You should replace the word "you" with the word "I".
And not everyone is a libertarian just because they don't drink the liberal kool aid!

[8182KSKUSH]

Main Entry: so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?social02.wav=socialism')) Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Might be a little tough to understand I guess, probably not all that coherent.
So what is "national health care"
So what is "TAKING MONEY FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES AND REDISTRIBUTING IT ELSEWHERE"

You are saying those are in fact NOT socialist policies?
OK!:thumbsup:
So long as he doesn't come out and say "I am a socialist pinko" then I guess he's not.
Or you could actually critically look at his vision for America and come to your own conclusion. Whatever! One thing he mentions alot, "FAIR, FAIR, FAIR".
Socialism is fair, it makes everyone equal, it sucks for everyone! But hey at least it's fair.
This is why most liberal bed wetters hate America, America IS NOT FAIR. WAAAAA!
Cuba is a pretty fair country where everyone has about the same amount of wealth! No big ol' mean nasty oil companies there! Venezuela is pretty fair! No evil oil companies there huh!?!

I know I know, nothing I said was coherent, and it sounds retarded, but hey as long as you say that to yourself then you can easily dismiss it and keep savoring the flavor of your kool aid!

[ldg420]

^^^lol, i was just getting ready to define socialism, thanks 818..:stoned:

[8182KSKUSH]

That'll teach ya to go off posting on another thread you stop light vandalizing mf'er!!! LOL I love that avatar! I need to switch mine up to something a lil' more humorous!

[khronik]

Wow, it's really easy to push your buttons. ;)

By the definition you posted, the government would have to take over all private companies to count as socialism. By the definition you seem to think it means, any form of taxation to fund government programs counts as socialism. Try and resolve this disparity, ok?

Technically, Bush is borrowing money from the Federal Reserve to give people an "Economic Stimulus Package." But since the people who will pay that loan back probably aren't born yet and don't have a say in the matter, I guess you're right. He's not borrowing from them, he's stealing from them.

The $1000 that Bong30 is talking about is a repeal of the payroll tax. I assumed that you knew that. My mistake. It's not a government handout, it's a tax rebate.


real American values
WTF does that even mean? I don't suppose it has anything to do with invading other countries on false pretenses?

[ldg420]

I don't suppose it has anything to do with invading other countries on false pretenses?

I was just sitting back thinking to myself hmm.... I wonder when khronik will start to bring up the Iraq war, and then miraculously you pulled the infamous Iraq Card................:stoned:

[8182KSKUSH]

Wow, it's really easy to push your buttons. ;)

If by "push my buttons" you mean participate in an on line forum and respond to your posts, then yeah sure. If by "push my buttons" you mean make me angry or whatever, then no, sorry, I drop deuces every morning that bother me more than anything anyone could post on a discussion board. :thumbsup:


By the definition you posted, the government would have to take over all private companies to count as socialism.

Wrong. That's YOUR definition, so long as you define socialism in that way you can assure yourself that you don't support a socialist.
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


By the definition you seem to think it means,

Gotta love it when someone tells you what YOU think! Doesn't work on me buddy, I am not a liberal, can't tell me what to think, nice try!


any form of taxation to fund government programs counts as socialism. Try and resolve this disparity, ok?

Again, disparity resolved, I never said that "any form of taxation to fund government programs counts as socialism," you just implied that I said that to make yourself sound better I guess?
I did say, TAKING MONEY FROM COMPANIES IN ADDITION TO THE TAXES THAT THEY ALREADY PAY BECAUSE YOU FEEL THEY ALREADY "MAKE ENOUGH MONEY", AND REDISTRIBUTING IT IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM! I don't care if you call it a "windfall profits tax" or not.


Technically, Bush is borrowing money from the Federal Reserve to give people an "Economic Stimulus Package."

Yeah, I recall reading that once before and asking you for a source. I guess the source is you, just repeating it over and over again huh? Let me ask you this, do you realize that the money people received, they PAID into the fed already?


But since the people who will pay that loan back probably aren't born yet and don't have a say in the matter, I guess you're right. He's not borrowing from them, he's stealing from them.

Again, the government paid us back, they borrowed the money from us, it's called the federal income tax. It wasn't their money, it was yours and mine to begin with. Hello, (knock knock knock) McFly?


The $1000 that Bong30 is talking about is a repeal of the payroll tax. I assumed that you knew that. My mistake. It's not a government handout, it's a tax rebate..

Really? I really thought that I had heard him say point blank that he would use the "windfall profits tax, aka, theft of private companies money" to give Americans the $1000. I am willing to believe you on this if again you could provide a source other than you.

That being said, sounds like a really nice thing he wants to do for little ol' us, since he wants to double the capitol gains tax, (source, Barak Obama in the democratic primary debates) which is currently @ I believe 15%ish and where he would like it to be @ I believe 28%ish. Nice guy! Hope you don't own any stock!:D That $1000 will come in real handy I guess come tax time.:thumbsup:



WTF does that even mean? I don't suppose it has anything to do with invading other countries on false pretenses?


Definitions of incoherent on the Web:

without logical or meaningful connection
Perfect! Don't forget Bush lied people died, the government blew up the levies in N.O., the 911 conspiracy, and oh yeah, global warming!
Thanks for the real life example of incoherent!
:S2::S2::S2::S2:

[8182KSKUSH]

I was just sitting back thinking to myself hmm.... I wonder when khronik will start to bring up the Iraq war, and then miraculously you pulled the infamous Iraq Card................:stoned:

Ok, now you are starting to fucking scare me!! Just kidding, how funny is that though!:D:D
You must have a copy of the liberal playbook too huh? Isn't that like page 5 where it says "no matter what you are talking about, don't fail to mention Bush took us to war under false pretenses, and if possible somehow get in there a catchy rhyme like "Bush lied People Died".
It's fun to debate liberals, especially when you can almost write the posts for them! So predictable! Oh yeah, and Bush eats babies and kills polar bears too!:D And he's listening in on my phone calls too! Shit! LMFAO!

[khronik]

I was just sitting back thinking to myself hmm.... I wonder when khronik will start to bring up the Iraq war, and then miraculously you pulled the infamous Iraq Card................:stoned:
It's so easy! How can you blame me? Would you criticize Jeffery Dahmer without mentioning that he killed people and ate them?

[8182KSKUSH]

It's so easy! How can you blame me? Would you criticize Jeffery Dahmer without mentioning that he killed people and ate them?


Yeah except the post is about Obama taking profits from private companies that earned them and has nothing to do with Bush? So I guess somehow I am missing the correlation between Bush and the Iraq War, and Obama being a socialist pinko?

But yeah if you are talking about Dahmer that makes sense to mention he ate people I guess?


Definitions of incoherent on the Web:

without logical or meaningful connection

[Bong30]

Dead on!!!!! couldn't have said it better myself:stoned:

8182, and idg420,
You guys are allright. Taking care of the Light work.......

[Bong30]

I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up,

My source is...his TV commercial He wants a WINDFALL TAX....DUH listen to him....get a wax cleaning kit for your ears

while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint.

now you are RIGHT on POINT.....I bleed conservatism



I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet.


Uhhh no im at HOME as a Husband and Father...


But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.

LINK a blog?????...thats what you call a referance????


would it be ok if i post his TV ad where he says he wants awindfall Tax


PLEASE some one search YOUtube for his ad.





You twist the truth to fit your Hate......

[McDanger]

"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discoveryâ?¦We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
That last sentence there says it all, and that is my opinion of what socialism is. Although it is partly true, but it does not mean everybody should get an equal share, just equal opportunity.
And on a different point, Do you know what the "payroll tax" is...Social Security, which is going broke. So the messiah wants to give every american $1000 X 350 million Americans is $350 billion.

[Bong30]

"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discoveryâ?¦We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
That last sentence there says it all, and that is my opinion of what socialism is. Although it is partly true, but it does not mean everybody should get an equal share, just equal opportunity.
And on a different point, Do you know what the "payroll tax" is...Social Security, which is going broke. So the messiah wants to give every american $1000 X 350 million Americans is $350 billion.


YES McDanger you are using LOGIC and Reasoning....

Most Liberals have lost THAT ability....they make all there decisions Based on emotion.


Every one should get an equal opportunity....What you do with it is called "the American Dream"

[Bong30]

You must have a copy of the liberal playbook too huh? Isn't that like page 5 where it says "no matter what you are talking about, don't fail to mention Bush took us to war under false pretenses, and if possible somehow get in there a catchy rhyme like "Bush lied People Died".
It's fun to debate liberals, especially when you can almost write the posts for them! So predictable! Oh yeah, and Bush eats babies and kills polar bears too!:D And he's listening in on my phone calls too! Shit! LMFAO!


Right on Point FUNNY.......

they go right to the Bumper stickers, dont they.

[Iguana]

"Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians."

So much for stereotypes. Not all pot smokers fit the hippie stereotype - not even close.

[McDanger]

Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians.

I like logic, but I don't understand why you think your position is necessarily the logical one.
Nobama wants a WINDFALL profit tax on big oil

give you a 1000 bucks...... I could use it Ill tell ya, BUT



Ask your MOM and DAD, look at you prospectus, statement, whatever......

If you have a 401k



YOU ARE BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



so Nobama wants to take money from you,to give to you.....


He is so stupid



discuss you are big oil, and if you were smart you would have bought oil low and sold it high.....ahhh the American Dream:thumbsup:

Your point is right on. BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.

[Bong30]

Your point is right on. BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.

Yeah they make 8%...and they do all the work.

the Goverment takes in taxes that make, what, like..... 16-40 and more cents per gallon for what? NOTHING... red tape?

You dont need to provide the financials, cause it is obvious to anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together...

[daihashi]

I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up, while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint. I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet. But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.

Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.

Really it's common sense and not necessarily something that can be verified as you would need access to all the different 401k programs to source it.

[Psycho4Bud]

I had to do a bit of a clean up in aisle seven just now. Lets keep this thread without the insults and directed to the topic.

Thank you much for your cooperation....:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

So is the premise of this thread that everybody, or even most, who recieve the $1000 tax rebate are in fact shareholders in oil companies? And I suppose the taxes based on profit limits will result in a stock dip so steep that it will result in a whole thousand dollar loss for each shareholder?

$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000. And people wonder why I was against the 1st and second Tax Rebates Bush sent out.

Yes.. 300 billion will effect the profits of oil companies to where it trickles down to the consumer. What you fail to realize is that a 401k is an investment, and while you may not lose $1k... you are still doing the opposite of what a 401k should do and that is build money/funds.

In addition even if yo ulose $100 from your 401k... that $100 had an oppurtunity to turn into Thousands or tens of thousands but now it will never have that chance since it's lost.



I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.

I thought it was stupid also, but apparently our reasons for thinking the stimulus package was stupid are for different reasons.


This particular plan of Obama's will do very little if anything, but you'd have to be a fool to think the Republican economic policies have been any wiser. McSame was all ready to jump on the 3-month gas-tax break that would amount to a mammoth $34 savings for the average American. Nothing but a little (illusionary) gift to buy some votes, while not actually accomplishing anything to fix a broken economy.

It's not tax breaks that make me think that Republicans will do any better. It's the amount that Obama plans on taxing corporations. Currently Companies have some incentive to be here. If you hurt their profits companies will cut jobs or move their factories elsewhere that it's cheaper to manufacturer. Combine a bad economy with a high unemployment rate and it's just a recipe for disaster.

It's no secret that companies will cut their employees if their profit line is hurt. Look at Wachovia very recently and Historically HP/Compaq. Two very real situations at what happens when a companies profits are hurt.


Democrat or Republican, Americans still seem bent on voting for the safe 'ol candidates that will tweak the status quo while the nation circles the drain. Of course you get anybody with some fiscal responsibility and actual respect for the constitution (aka, Ron Paul), and joe-schmo voter thinks you're an "extremist" for actually taking the action necessary to bring about the real change that they keep demanding but refuse to vote for.

I didn't want either of these candidates, Just like you I would like Ron Paul with a strong VP to fill in the gaps. However there is nothing wrong with voting for the status quo. America is really not a bad place to live currently. I think, despite what many others will try to have you believe, that we are one of the greatest countries on this planet and I am PROUD to call this my home.

[McDanger]

"Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians."

So much for stereotypes. Not all pot smokers fit the hippie stereotype - not even close.

You are right of course. That is because us libertarians love FREEDOM, and hate Gov't intrusion into our lives.
I am a proud Libertarian. GO LIBERTY:D

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000. And people wonder why I was against the 1st and second Tax Rebates Bush sent out.

Yes.. 300 billion will effect the profits of oil companies to where it trickles down to the consumer. What you fail to realize is that a 401k is an investment, and while you may not lose $1k... you are still doing the opposite of what a 401k should do and that is build money/funds.

In addition even if yo ulose $100 from your 401k... that $100 had an oppurtunity to turn into Thousands or tens of thousands but now it will never have that chance since it's lost.


Sorry daihashi but your numbers are pretty skewed here. The rebate isn't going out to each and every single American, it's going out to the "middle class", however that's defined (probably $150,000 a year or less as he defines it). 300 million Americans include children and the homeless, both of which probably make up more than the working adults.

Now I'm completely pulling numbers out of my ass here, but for the sake of creating a ballpark figure:

300 million Americans.
lets say 250 million middle class as defined by Obama
divided by an average family size of, lets say, 6 people: 41.66 million x 1000
= $41.66 Billion
(again, ballpark figure)

Still a huge waste of money, and lets face it; Dems and Reps have become masters of waste.







Regarding the original thread; I've seen no evidence that big-oil taxation is actually paying for this $1000 rebate. Obama wants to put a profits-tax cap on the oil companies, he wants to institute a $1000 rebate; nowhere has he said that they're going to directly take $41.66 billion from oil companies and give it directly to the American people. Oil company taxation and the rebate are two separate issues. Just being new doesn't make the two initiaves linked. You could just as easily say the rebate is coming from income tax, property tax, or any other source that makes it's way into the government coffers.

[daihashi]

Regarding the original thread; I've seen no evidence that big-oil taxation is actually paying for this $1000 rebate. Obama wants to put a profits-tax cap on the oil companies, he wants to institute a $1000 rebate; nowhere has he said that they're going to directly take $41.66 billion from oil companies and give it directly to the American people. Oil company taxation and the rebate are two separate issues. Just being new doesn't make the two initiaves linked. You could just as easily say the rebate is coming from income tax, property tax, or any other source that makes it's way into the government coffers.

You're right.. my numbers were skewed. I don't know what I was thinking multiplying by 300 million.

In regards to tax rebate and oil companies:

Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest (http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/08/obama-calls-for-tax-rebates-fu.html)

from ctj.org:
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has talked up several proposals relating to energy and taxes over the past couple weeks, including a one-time tax rebate of $500 per spouse that would be funded by a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html)

From politico:
Fridayâ??s proposal says Obama â??is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.â?�

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, ‘emergency’ energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-calls-for-windfall-profits-tax-emergency-energy-rebate/)
From CNN:
Barack Obama said Friday that a windfall profits tax should be imposed on the oil industry to subsidize a $1,000 "emergency" rebate for consumers struggling with surging gas prices.

Lastly in one of the artices Obama claims to be able to save 1 million American jobs by the rebates.. I ask you... what do you think will happen when companies are being taxed upwards of 40% (I believe that's where Obama wants to move the tax to) and start cutting jobs. Let's say that the unemployment rate only rises 1%.. if you go by the 300 million population figure that's about 3 million jobs that would be lost. If you look at it from the 41.66 million of the adults that would get the rebate.. then that's still 416k jobs that would be lost. Does that really make sense to you? Let's help Americans save jobs by creating conditions that make companies have to cut jobs. I don't understand that logic at all.

I predict that if he get's that 40% tax that there will be much more than a 1% unemployment rate increase.

Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Thankyou Daihashi! I'm glad some posters are still making arguments based on evidence rather than wishy-washy rhetoric. I have a policy of remaining skeptical 'till I see some solid evidence, and this is the first I've seen in this thread so far.

[khronik]

Wrong. That's YOUR definition, so long as you define socialism in that way you can assure yourself that you don't support a socialist.
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Does Obama advocate the government owning or administering the means of production and distribution of goods? Of course not. Maybe some services like health insurance, but that's hardly socialism.


Really? I really thought that I had heard him say point blank that he would use the "windfall profits tax, aka, theft of private companies money" to give Americans the $1000. I am willing to believe you on this if again you could provide a source other than you.
I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.


That being said, sounds like a really nice thing he wants to do for little ol' us, since he wants to double the capitol gains tax, (source, Barak Obama in the democratic primary debates) which is currently @ I believe 15%ish and where he would like it to be @ I believe 28%ish. Nice guy! Hope you don't own any stock!:D That $1000 will come in real handy I guess come tax time.:thumbsup:
He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.


Definitions of incoherent on the Web:

without logical or meaningful connection
Perfect! Don't forget Bush lied people died, the government blew up the levies in N.O., the 911 conspiracy, and oh yeah, global warming!
Thanks for the real life example of incoherent!
:S2::S2::S2::S2:
You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.


$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000.
Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.


Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.
No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.


Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?
One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.


Yeah they make 8%...and they do all the work.

the Goverment takes in taxes that make, what, like..... 16-40 and more cents per gallon for what? NOTHING... red tape?
8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.

Just because I support Obama in this election, doesn't mean I'm a liberal. Hell, I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004. He was the libertarian candidate. I've always been against the two-party system, but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.

[Bong30]

No. I'm a grad student now.

^^^^ Generaly speaking, More college you have the DUMBER YOU ARE.....its called brain washing, started in elementry school, and fallowed up by the media......just shake it off

But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years.

Who took the House and Senate 2 years ago??????????????????

Dumb ass dems......... Nancy Stretch Pelosi, Harry Im a Idiot Reid


Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.



Weednomics....here we go

If you have 100 joints...

the goverment only takes 15 joints right now....

Nobama wants to take 28 Joints from you.....

who do you vote for now?
.

its called weednomics.....:thumbsup:

[daihashi]

Does Obama advocate the government owning or administering the means of production and distribution of goods? Of course not. Maybe some services like health insurance, but that's hardly socialism.

No but it's a socialized service. Which comes out of our pockets one way or another. Increase Capital Gains tax and guess what's going to happen.. unemployment rate will shoot up. Companies want to protect their profits. So guess who still ends up paying for this.. WE do in the form of a higher unemployment rate.

Hey we may be unemployed and starving, but at least we have health insurance :thumbsup:



I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.

What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.

And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, â??emergencyâ?? energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-calls-for-windfall-profits-tax-emergency-energy-rebate/)

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html)

Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest (http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/08/obama-calls-for-tax-rebates-fu.html)


He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.

Cap gains rate: How high would Obama go? - Jun. 20, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/news/economy/obama_capgains/index.htm?postversion=2008062007)

Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.

Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..

$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.

Now let's increase that to 20%

$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.

now let's set that in the middle at 24%

$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.

The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.

That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.

Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.

If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.

It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?

In the end we all suffer for capital gains.


You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.

This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).

Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.


Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.

Yes.. apparently I was high when I wrote that. Good job repeating what someone else already pointed out :thumbsup:


No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.

You realize that you can control that account right? If you are losing money than that is just poor investment.

Might I recommend some books on learning to read the market from the pioneer himself Benjamin Graham?

Check out the Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis. Both are excellent reads. If you're losing money then that is no one's fault but you're own. This is a free market society and because the government doesn't control every aspect of that the condition of a stock can go in either direction. However through careful analysis and calculation you can determine if a company will be profitable in the long term or not.

Key word being LONG TERM. Investing is a long term thing. You won't make much money if you are doing short term investing.

Do you even know what is in your mutual fund?

Either way just from your response it seems you have little experience in the way of finances. I really didn't need you to throw a number out there, but since you did 20k is not that much. It's a good starting point though.

You are in control of your own money. You don't want to lose any more money but don't know how to invest.. PULL IT OUT and invest in a bond or CD or something else with a crappy vested amount value. At least you won't be losing money.

You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.



One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.


If that is the typical response then tell me why are we increasing the capital gains tax. Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?

This seems like a poor rebuttal. Try again khronik.


8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.


You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!


but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.

2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?

Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.

Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.

Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

[khronik]

My account was losing money since well before the Dems got control of congress in 2007. And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing.

[daihashi]

its called weednomics.....:thumbsup:

I think your weednomics analogy might reach more people than my example using real numbers. LOL

Just about anything can be related back to good or weed :hippy:

[daihashi]

My account was losing money since well before the Dems got control of congress in 2007. .

It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund.

Or do what makes most sense. Take control and invest your own money.

Honestly the money lost is no ones fault but you're own. If nothing else you could've at best put the money into a CD that wouldgive you enough for the rate of infation over the course of 5 years. You're just about guaranteed to not lose money.

Again an example of how you are responsible for how your money grows, not the government.


And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing

nope.. but increase the capital gains tax and those companies that are in your mutual fund will see even further losses and you'll lose even more of your 20k. I suggest you start researching funds and companies to see where your money is most profitable. Obviously it's not where you have it now.

[khronik]

I'm not an investor, which is why I have my money invested in a managed mutual fund. I'm not sure the details, but if I pull it out now, I lose even more money. And pretty much everyone that has money invested in stocks is losing money too, not just me. The money I'm losing isn't a lot, but it's significant. No one can accurately predict the stock market, so I think I'll just keep my money in there and weather out the recession.

So, if Obama is president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money, then it's his fault, but if Bush is the president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money then it's no fault but your own?

[daihashi]

I'm not an investor, which is why I have my money invested in a managed mutual fund. I'm not sure the details, but if I pull it out now, I lose even more money. And pretty much everyone that has money invested in stocks is losing money too, not just me. The money I'm losing isn't a lot, but it's significant. No one can accurately predict the stock market, so I think I'll just keep my money in there and weather out the recession.

You can most certainly predict the likelihood of a company becoming profitable and what it's projected growth will be. If you couldn't then men like Warren Buffet would be poor.

Why will you lose money and how much money will you lose? How much money have you lost in this fund over the last 2-3 years? Do you see what I'm getting at? Does the amount you'd lose by pulling out come close to the amount you've lost already? If so then you should've backed out of your fund probably last year.

Honestly I'm not sure why you brought up the fact that you've lost money multiple years in a row. It wasn't relevant to the subject at hand or the government and was only about you.

The mutual fund part of your reply really didn't interest me in particular except that you would try to put a personal experience that you had the right and the oppurtunity to avoid, on to someone else (that's how it appeared in your post anyhow. Maybe you didn't mean it that way).


So, if Obama is president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money, then it's his fault, but if Bush is the president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money then it's no fault but your own?

No.. I wouldn't blame any president. The stock market is the stock market. I have the right to not play it.

[8182KSKUSH]

You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.




I simply meant, the values that make America great. Rewarding hard work, individualism, and success, as opposed to punishing those that actually achieve the American dream. American values, competition, having faith that each person is capable to achieve whatever they want and has the ability within them to do so as long as they choose to. As opposed to the vision that most liberals have, that America is evil, certain groups of people just aren't capable of doing well without the help of big brother ect., that Americans aren't able to make decisions for themselves and need to be micromanaged. That anyone that has money is evil and is the reason that everyone else doesn't have money, (you know class warfare). You know, the liberal mantra. I am sure you feel like your "ideas" are very mainstream, likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs, this may explain why you don't think you are liberal, because in your eyes your not, you are just like everyone else on campus. LMFAO!
Like I said, after you actually have some real life exp, you should come back and read some of the things you are saying now. Careful you may throw up a lil' in your mouth!:jointsmile: I would love to know if you change your mind on taking the money people earn once you are actually earning money.
p.s., there are liberals that actually understand America, American Values, and that do in fact love their country, they are just few and far between, obviously as evident here on this forum. (They do really believe they are right and have good intentions, they just happen to be wrong!)
Again, you are a real smart guy apparently, since you like to tell other people what they mean! The fact that you are a grad student kind of explains alot though! You should come back and re-read these posts about 7 years from now.

[McDanger]

My account was losing money since well before the Dems got control of congress in 2007. And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing.
Maybe you should have invested in an oil company.:D

[McDanger]

I'm not an investor, which is why I have my money invested in a managed mutual fund. I'm not sure the details, but if I pull it out now, I lose even more money. And pretty much everyone that has money invested in stocks is losing money too, not just me. The money I'm losing isn't a lot, but it's significant. No one can accurately predict the stock market, so I think I'll just keep my money in there and weather out the recession.

So, if Obama is president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money, then it's his fault, but if Bush is the president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money then it's no fault but your own?
You will have to wait for "this recession" to start before you can weather it. Do you even know the definition of recession?
You need to put your trust in the government and buy savings bonds hahahahahahaha.

Oh and btw you cannot lose more by selling than you have already lost, all youi can do is lock in your losses. Don't they have economics classes at that graduate school?

[khronik]

You will have to wait for "this recession" to start before you can weather it. Do you even know the definition of recession?
You need to put your trust in the government and buy savings bonds hahahahahahaha.

Oh and btw you cannot lose more by selling than you have already lost, all youi can do is lock in your losses. Don't they have economics classes at that graduate school?
I'm an engineer, not an economist. And you're wrong about how I can't lose more than I've already lost. If you pull out a CD early, you lose money, for instance. I'm not sure the details, and I will be the first to tell you I'm no Warren Buffet, (who supports raising the tax on capital gains by the way) but I know that if I pull out all my money at once, I'm boned.


I simply meant, the values that make America great. Rewarding hard work, individualism, and success, as opposed to punishing those that actually achieve the American dream. American values, competition, having faith that each person is capable to achieve whatever they want and has the ability within them to do so as long as they choose to. As opposed to the vision that most liberals have, that America is evil, certain groups of people just aren't capable of doing well without the help of big brother ect., that Americans aren't able to make decisions for themselves and need to be micromanaged. That anyone that has money is evil and is the reason that everyone else doesn't have money, (you know class warfare). You know, the liberal mantra. I am sure you feel like your "ideas" are very mainstream, likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs, this may explain why you don't think you are liberal, because in your eyes your not, you are just like everyone else on campus. LMFAO!
Like I said, after you actually have some real life exp, you should come back and read some of the things you are saying now. Careful you may throw up a lil' in your mouth! I would love to know if you change your mind on taking the money people earn once you are actually earning money.
Well, you assume that Obama is very "liberal" and then ascribe all this nonsense to "liberals" and therefore Obama. I worked for two years after I got my undergraduate degree, and I just showed up on campus for the first time yesterday, so this BS about "surrounding myself with liberals on campus" is just that. My grandpa's been a Democrat his whole life, and he's 82. My dad has only ever voted for third-party candidates in the time I've known him, but he supports Obama. I have at least three uncles who each make over $150,000 a year, who all support Obama. Billionaires George Soros and Warren Buffet support Obama. So I don't see where you get off saying that no one with real-life experience could possibly support the guy.

[allrollsin21]

"likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs,"

Hey 818 you should really attempt some self control. Your posts are so reminiscent of a 10 year old bully calling people names. You seem to really struggle sticking to the facts and not putting people down. I am sure you have what you believe to be a real witty response to this post, but check yourself. Show some respect to other peoples opinions. Most of these political threads have you making absurdly exaggerated and offensive comments towards others.

[allrollsin21]

"Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?"

The reason we do not is because of lobbyists. The people paying for the elected officials campaigns. Any current environmental taxes are nonsense. The externalities associated with these huge corporations are beyond the scope of most peoples understanding. Gas SHOULD cost well over 5$ a gallon. A t-shirt should cost a Hundred... This applies to everything at the cherished walmarts. The cost should be increased and companies should be responsible for cleaning up the mess being made of the environment. If they don't want to do it, which they have shown they do not, then they need HUGE taxes imposed so the government can do it for them. All this freedom, and american dream nonsense...if the government would let them, these companies would be pouring their toxic wastes in a hole underneath your homes.

[dragonrider]

I do not think the windfall profits tax is a good idea, but I also do not agree with the premise that EVERYONE has a stake in the profitability of oil companies.

The idea that "you are big oil" is not necessarily true. First of all, not everyone has a 401k, IRA, or other mutual fund investments. And second, even for those who do, just because you have a 401k does not mean you are necessarily invested in oil companies.

401k investment options usually include several options that are not invested in stocks at all --- there may be money market accounts, bond funds, real estate investment trusts and other non-stock investment options. Almost certainly you will have some stock mutual funds as well, but there are many mutual funds that are not invested in oil. Since most oil companies are large and highly capitalized, almost any small cap fund will have very little invested in oil. Also there are many funds out there that include some kind of social responisbility component to their investment strategy and intentionally exclude investments in companies such as oil comanies, gross polluters, environmentally irresponsible industries, tobacco companies, companies that use child labor, or other industires or campanies that they define as socially irresponsible. If you want to know what your mutual funds are invested in, read the prospectus. You are only invested in Big Oil if you choose to be.

A lot of the debate so far has centered around whether policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich" are favorable or disfavorable to "the rest of us."

There is a certain percentage of our population who are the "rich" who, if they always support policies favorable to themselves, will always support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich," even at the expense of the "poor" or the "middle class."

And there is a certain percentage of our population who are the "poor" who, if they always support policies favorabe to themselves, will always support policies favorable the "poor," even at the expense of industry and/or the "rich" or the "middle class."

But the most important swing constituency is the "middle class," who are neither rich nor poor. In good economic times, the middle class sees a chance that they themselves may become rich, and they tend to support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich." In bad economic times, the middle class fears the prospect that they themselves may become poor, and they tend to support policies favorable to the "poor."

If you are middle class right now, do you think you have a better chance of becoming rich or poor in the future?

[dragonrider]

Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.


It is true that a mutual fund is a collection of stocks, but it is NOT true that "Some/most of which include Oil." It is very easy to find out what your mutual fund is invested in, and if you do not want to invest in oil, it is easy to avoid it.

[dragonrider]

BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.

This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.

[dragonrider]

It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund.

Actually if you look at the overall performance of the stock market, it has been esentially flat since around the begining of the year 2000. It goes up, it comes back down, but overall there have been very little gains for most of the decade. With fees and operating expenses, it is not surpirsing that many people have seen a decline in portfolio value during this time.

If you have actually been actively investing during the whole time, buying on a periodic schedule regardless of the market conditions (like a little each paycheck in a 401k), then you have probably made some money. This is becasue you buy more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high --- so if even if there are a lot of ups and downs, as long as the market still returns to the same value, you generally stand a good chance of still making money. But if you invested a lump sum of 20,000 at the begining, you have probably lost money.


Or do what makes most sense. Take control and invest your own money.

If the money is in a 401k, then there are is little opprtunity to "Take control and invest your own money." The most you can do is choose from among the investment options offered.

[dragonrider]

When you get right down to it. Any person that owns stock by way of thier 401K witch most people have. They are big oil. They are the share holder that the company is trying to make a profit for.


Not true. Just because you have a 401k does not mean you own stock in oil companies.

[dragonrider]

I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.


Big difference here, the money Bush sent to people was their money to begin with! The money wasn't stolen from a company that earned it and then given to people that had nothing to do with earning it. The money Bush gave out was money that Americans had given to the federal gov in the form of income taxes. Hence, "income tax rebate". Now whether or not it helped the economy, who knows? That's debatable. But fact is that money belonged to the people to begin with!

Wrong. The money was BORROWED and given away. It wasn't taken from some huge pile of cash that the government has saved up from income taxes --- it was borrowed and added to the national debt. If it was stolen from anyone, it was stolen from the future generations of taxpayers who will have to pay off the debt with interest. It is not a "tax rebate" --- it is a tax INCREASE on future generations so that we can buy crap now. What a waste.

[khronik]

No but it's a socialized service. Which comes out of our pockets one way or another. Increase Capital Gains tax and guess what's going to happen.. unemployment rate will shoot up. Companies want to protect their profits. So guess who still ends up paying for this.. WE do in the form of a higher unemployment rate.

Hey we may be unemployed and starving, but at least we have health insurance :thumbsup:
You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.


What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.
This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=5


And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:
The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.


Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.

Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..

$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.

Now let's increase that to 20%

$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.

now let's set that in the middle at 24%

$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.

The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.

That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.

Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.

If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.

It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?

In the end we all suffer for capital gains.
You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.


This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).
Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.


Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.
And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.


You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.
I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.


You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!
I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.


2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?
He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.


Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.

Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.
Too much work.


Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.

[Bong30]

Not true. Just because you have a 401k does not mean you own stock in oil companies.

They should if they have half a brain.

[daihashi]

You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.

Looking forward to it.


This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=5


Ok, thank you for posting it. I have read this and it's nothing new. The amount of money saved saved per American is negligible here.

McCainâ??s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obamaâ??s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings.

That example was given in the article you posted. Wow, a whole extra $700 a year, that amounts to $13/week. I'm reeling in the money now.

To be honest I would rather pay that extra $700 and have my government do some good with it.

And by the way, that article was actually really bad at outlining Obama's 'payroll tax' cut. I am confident you could've found a better article as I actually had to go out and search with keywords I found in that article to truely understand what his plan proposed.

What is interesting is what he had to say a year ago about this.

Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.
ABC News: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1)

Now he proposes his cap at 250k.


The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.


You realize that the payroll tax cut isn't really a cut but more accurately a shift in who pays the taxes. So you're right, windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, because there's not an actual cut in the payroll tax.


You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.

Last I checked I was talking about capital gains. Matter of fact if you were paying attention I quoted you when you listed the 20-28% figure that obama proposes to raise the Capital gains tax to. So really you seem to be the one that's confused.

Last I checked companies keep their own investment portfolios.. last I checked capital gains still effects big business in more ways than you can imagine.


Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.

uhh.. that's great because I never accused you of supporting the war either. What are you talking about, you went way out into left field.

And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.

Warren Buffet I would be willing to listen to, but you're a self confessed person who knows nothing about investing. And you're hanging on the words of Obama, even though you don't really understand what he's saying.


I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.


Again you realize that the president is not responsible for what the stock market does and is not responsible for your fiscal well being? Who is just about anyone else with invested money.

Since I actually take the time to analyze my stocks and pay attention to what the companies are doing I have not lost any money. My stock portfolio has risen between 15-22% each year for the last 3 years.

I am better at investment than most but you are making a huge assumption by saying "I imagine that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too." Just because you are bad with money does not mean other people are who take the time to understand the market.



I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.


Last I checked the constitution granted us freedom, not socialized services. Socialized services are services that cost money that you may or may not take part in.

For example, I pay medicare... but I do not get to participate in medicare, or medicaid for that matter. I didn't participate for free lunch program at school, I never qualified for any government programs growing up yet my family still had to pay into it.

That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.

That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.

Honestly I feel that a good majority of the services the government provides should be done away with. It is a waste of our tax dollars. I am not talking about welfare or medicare but our government is notoriously bad with spending our money. Why should we have to pay more money so they can spend more on programs that the majority of the population won't get to use.



He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.

So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.




Too much work.

You took the time to obviously read through my long response and try to rebuttal with your own, yet this is too much work?

More like you can't do it, and even if you can you've probably been working the google on your internet machine to try to dig something up. The fact is that in comparison to other senators his list of actual accomplishments is pathetic and just about non existant.



First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.

Texas state senator, US congressmen or a city council person. It doesn't matter, this is a guy who went on national TV to endorse Obama. If you are going to say you support someone and that you stand behind them you better have a good reason for doing it.

If you can't name even one accomplishment from that candidate then it raises alot of flags. Why would a state senator support someone he knows nothing about. This doesn't alarm you AT ALL?

[daihashi]

This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.

Here is an excerpt from CNN. Next time you should strongly consider backing up what you say with facts.


Oil companies aren't as profitable as you think

I sometimes get the impression that people think oil executives hold clandestine meetings where they unilaterally decide to set the price of oil and gas in order to maximize their profits. After maniacally laughing about how they are gouging the American public, they then go swimming in pools of gold ala Scrooge McDuck.

But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

In defense of oil companies - Apr. 29, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/index.htm)

[daihashi]

Actually if you look at the overall performance of the stock market, it has been esentially flat since around the begining of the year 2000. It goes up, it comes back down, but overall there have been very little gains for most of the decade. With fees and operating expenses, it is not surpirsing that many people have seen a decline in portfolio value during this time.

And how is this the governments fault. The government is not responsible for the free market, the free market takes care of itself.

If you are losing money then ultimately this is your own fault. I manage my own stocks and have not lost any money since 2002.


If you have actually been actively investing during the whole time, buying on a periodic schedule regardless of the market conditions (like a little each paycheck in a 401k), then you have probably made some money. This is becasue you buy more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high --- so if even if there are a lot of ups and downs, as long as the market still returns to the same value, you generally stand a good chance of still making money. But if you invested a lump sum of 20,000 at the begining, you have probably lost money.

If you invest a lump sum of money at the beginning of a decline with unsure market conditions than this is a poor decision made on the investor. The government is not responsible for poor investment decisions.

I am not disclosing how much I have in the market but it is significantly more than 20k... and I have not lost anything since 2002.



If the money is in a 401k, then there are is little opprtunity to "Take control and invest your own money." The most you can do is choose from among the investment options offered.

And with the rising cost of oil you would think that if you're losing money in your funds that you would move it to a fund that was heavily vested in oil. Again, this would be a smart investment decision that should be made by the investor. It is of no fault of the government.

And you've sort've gone off topic, the only reason 401k's were mentioned were in relation to windfall profits tax. Which if you have any kind of DECENT stock portfolio then you will have at LEAST 1 oil stock as well as several other slow steady performers.

[8182KSKUSH]

Well, you assume that Obama is very "liberal" and then ascribe all this nonsense to "liberals" and therefore Obama.


Case in point. You are going to try to argue that Obama isn't "very liberal". You are right on my assumption about him, but you also prove my point as to your beliefs as well. Again, you don't see him or yourself for that matter as very liberal, because apparently in your little world your beliefs just seem as though they are middle of the road or mainstream. (Just like everyone else you know right!) This is the clue that indicates you surround yourself with limp wristed libs. (Not to mention the fact you were surprised that "people on a cannabis site weren't orgasming over Obama. Or even worse yet, staunchly opposed to his political philosophy! OH MY! Were your intentions to seek out other sheeple to reinforce the beliefs that you were indoctrinated with?:wtf:)
The mainstream media has the same problem. Ask most of the pseudo reporters on any of the major networks, "do you have a liberal bias" the answer is "no, we are as fair as all the other networks," not understanding that they all are very liberal and biased. They don't see this just like you don't see it in yourself, because you have the same beliefs as ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE YOU TRY TO SURROUND YOURSELF WITH. If you do that then you "think" you aren't liberal. I know I know, I am being a bully by pointing this out, and also being incoherent.
More to the point though, IT'S A MATTER OF FACT THAT OBAMA IS A FLAMING BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL! The fact that you are going to try to say otherwise is laughable! In fact I don't think there are really all that many other people that could be considered more liberal than him.
A bright red flag for spotting a liberal, if you call them out they get really mad and defensive and begin kicking and screaming and crying foul! Liberals hate to be outed for some reason.:)

Please, you can believe whatever the hell you want really, I could care less. It's just funny as hell that after you pledge so much support for, and share your thoughts, that when someone says that you are liberal you have a fit. Typical liberal.

[dragonrider]

They should if they have half a brain.

You were implying that anyone with a 401k automatically has a stake in the success of oil companies and that a windfall profit tax on oil companies would hurt anyone with a 401k. That's not true.

Again, I'm NOT in favor of a windfall profit tax on oil companies, but I was objecting to the logic that said it would hurt anyone with a 401k.

Now you are saying that SMART investors are invested in oil stocks, while also warning that oil stocks will be hurt by a windfall profit tax. Maybe a smart investor would guage whether this new tax would hurt oil companies as much as you say, then decide what are the odds of the tax passing, consider what are the other factors affecting oil stock proces, and then decide if now is a good time to buy, hold or sell oil stocks.

And then there are other people who base their investment decisions on more than just the numbers.

[8182KSKUSH]

You were implying that anyone with a 401k automatically has a stake in the success of oil companies and that a windfall profit tax on oil companies would hurt anyone with a 401k. That's not true.

Again, I'm NOT in favor of a windfall profit tax on oil companies, but I was objecting to the logic that said it would hurt anyone with a 401k.

Now you are saying that SMART investors are invested in oil stocks, while also warning that oil stocks will be hurt by a windfall profit tax. Maybe a smart investor would guage whether this new tax would hurt oil companies as much as you say, then decide what are the odds of the tax passing, consider what are the other factors affecting oil stock proces, and then decide if now is a good time to buy, hold or sell oil stocks.

And then there are other people who base their investment decisions on more than just the numbers.

That is an excellent point, (even though you are an evil liberal). I would put my money on the fact that Obama won't get the chance to do this though, but again, excellent point. (Damn smartass liberal):D
In a related kind of way, Wal Mart apparently is preparing for the worst, they have been scurrying around in the event that Obama does win and they have to deal with some of their own workforce issues. So I do agree with you, people should prepare for some of the possible changes to come in the event of the "worst case scenario".:jointsmile: Especially the changes that are easy to see coming.

[Bong30]

Hollistic stock buying......your killing me

if you dont use numbers what do you use?

100% numbers, speculation on numbers, and more numbers.... LOL

Buy at a low number sell at a high number...seams easy

[Bong30]

Kron you are so miss informed it is scary


http://www.acuratings.org/2005Senate.htm


^^^^^^ look up your senators^^^^^^^^

Obama's Liberal Voting Record
Via Amanda Carpenter we get the skinny on Barack Obama's attempt to look like a "uniter" and a moderate. Just a little slice of reality called a Voting Record. Yes; with all the would be Senatorial Presidential candidates it's a good time to recall that senators have VRs.

The Illinois Senator's ACU rating is 8 which puts him on Hillary's left (9) and Kerry's right (5) to compare him to 2 other Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

[dragonrider]

And how is this the governments fault. The government is not responsible for the free market, the free market takes care of itself.

I did not say it was the government's fault.


If you are losing money then ultimately this is your own fault. I manage my own stocks and have not lost any money since 2002.

2002 was a market bottom. No one who invested in 2002 and stayed invested the entire period has lost money, unless they really screwed up. Whenever I hear someone say something like this I know that they are just blowing smoke. Anyone can pick a suitably distant market bottom and claim not to have lost money since then. How have you done since last October?



And you've sort've gone off topic, the only reason 401k's were mentioned were in relation to windfall profits tax.

I was responding to your statement that, "It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund." If that is off topic, then it went off toipic way before I got here. My point was that given the right timeframes, no one beats the market, certainly not the average investor with $20k in the market and not a lot of inclination or aptitude to actively manage it.

[dragonrider]

Hollistic stock buying......your killing me

if you dont use numbers what do you use?

100% numbers, speculation on numbers, and more numbers.... LOL

Buy at a low number sell at a high number...seams easy

Ha ha! It does sound funny as "hoilistic stock buying." The thing is there are so many thousands of possible investments, that it is pretty easy to find good investments with good numbers that avoid investing in companies that you do not agree with. In fact it can be a good strategy. Companies who are in some way irresponsible are more often hit with unexpected costs and difficulties that affect their performance --- big pollution cleanup costs, labor problems, government intervention, boycotts, lawsuits. Those kinds of problems can come suddenly and a company that was once prioftiable can see its stock tank in just a single news cycle.

Investing is mostly about numbers, but just because a company's numbers look good, if it goes against waht you belive, you might not find it to be worth it. There are plenty of responsible companies with good numbers.

I'm not saying that I do a lot of my investing using this as a criterion because most of my investment are in 401k's with limited investment choices. But when I did invest in single stocks in the past, they were all in good, decent responsible companies with good financials. They all made money for me.

And about, "Buy at a low number sell at a high number...seams easy" --- it seems a lot easier than it really is.

[McDanger]

This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.
Ok I looked it up for you. According to their latest quarterly report:
thru June 08
total taxes paid $61,702,000,000.
net income $22,570,000,000.

I did not fabricate anything

[McDanger]

Wrong. The money was BORROWED and given away. It wasn't taken from some huge pile of cash that the government has saved up from income taxes --- it was borrowed and added to the national debt. If it was stolen from anyone, it was stolen from the future generations of taxpayers who will have to pay off the debt with interest. It is not a "tax rebate" --- it is a tax INCREASE on future generations so that we can buy crap now. What a waste.
I agree with you on this one, it was not a tax rebate since you did not have to pay taxes to get it, you only had to file taxes.

[daihashi]

I did not say it was the government's fault.

2002 was a market bottom. No one who invested in 2002 and stayed invested the entire period has lost money, unless they really screwed up. Anyone can pick a suitably distant market bottom and claim not to have lost money since then. How have you done since last October?


I'm glad to see you've decided you know what *I'm* doing. Thank you for being pompous enough to assume you know me.


Honestly I'm not going to go into the details of my portfolio performance. For one it is none of your business and secondly you will find some reason to try to call me out as a liar simply because I know how to invest. I will say this; you're right since October I have not performed particularly well; especially since I'm S&P heavy and I took quite a few hits there; however YTD I am still on top by more than the rate of inflation.



My point was that given the right timeframes, no one beats the market, certainly not the average investor with $20k in the market and not a lot of inclination or aptitude to actively manage it.

Everyone has the ability to learn and it's not difficult, if anyone should try to invest into the market either by themselves or through the use of a mutual fund I feel it is important they know exactly what is happening and what their money is doing.

:hippy:

As far as blowing smoke up your ass... I assure you I'm not, but again you don't know me so I have no way prove it and the same is true vice versa :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

Here is an excerpt from CNN. Next time you should strongly consider backing up what you say with facts.

Ha ha! Daihashi, dude, you slay me sometimes! When I said:


This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.

I was referring to this absurd statement by McDanger:


Your point is right on. BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.

And I was making fun of him not wanting to post any backup for his absurd "facts." I was being sacrastic. If he wants to make these kinds of claims and declare he is not backing them up, then it should be fine for me to say they are not true and declare I am not going to back it up either.

And all sarcasm aside, I still do not believe the part in bold about oil companies paying 60% of their profits in taxes. I have nothing to back it up, but I do not believe oil companies pay 60% of their profit in taxes. Unless someone can back up that statement, I choose not to believe it, even if I do have 2 fingers and should be able to look it up myself.

[daihashi]

And all sarcasm aside, I still do not believe the part in bold about oil companies paying 60% of their profits in taxes. I have nothing to back it up, but I do not believe oil companies pay 60% of their profit in taxes. Unless someone can back up that statement, I choose not to believe it, even if I do have 2 fingers and should be able to look it up myself.

Actually.. I'm not sure I believe that number either. I would like to see some sourced information on that. However I do believe it is a high number.

[dragonrider]

Ok I looked it up for you. According to their latest quarterly report:
thru June 08
total taxes paid $61,702,000,000.
net income $22,570,000,000.

I did not fabricate anything

This does not look right to me. How can they pay $62 billion in taxes on $23 billion in net income. That's not a 60% rate like you said, that's almost 300% --- they are going in the hole $39 billion each quarter to pay taxes? I think that is wrong. When you post the numbers, please post a link as well. Thanks.

[dragonrider]

I'm glad to see you've decided you know what *I'm* doing. Thank you for being pompous enough to assume you know me.

I do not presume to know what you are doing. My comment was that if you say you haven't lost money in the stock market since 2002, that is not saying alot. 2002 was a market bottom, and if you have lost money between then and now you have radically underformed the overall market -- and yes, you should definitely consider other kinds of investing.


Honestly I'm not going to go into the details of my portfolio performance. For one it is none of your business and secondly you will find some reason to try to call me out as a liar simply because I know how to invest. I will say this; you're right since October I have not performed particularly well; especially since I'm S&P heavy and I took quite a few hits there; however YTD I am still on top by more than the rate of inflation.

I certainly respect your right not to discuss your personal finances, but you are the one who brought it up. You have significantly more than $20k invested, and you haven't lost money since 2002 and you tooks some hits since last october, but you are still ahead YTD --- me too! On all points! We are like investment twins!

[dragonrider]

Back to the original thread, I am not in favor of a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and I am not in favor of a special rebate to help people pay for higher energy prices. However, I would not mind seeing many of the tax breaks that go to oil companies and the other public subsidies in the form of extremely cheap oil leases go away. These companies make enough money without tax breaks and subsidized leases.

If the government wants to give away rebates to taxpayers, they should rebate the cost of something that is a real investment and has a real future, like a home solar power system, solar water heater, home insulation, electric car, etc. If they want to subsidize an energy industry, subsidize one with a future, like a solar thermal power station, or a wind farm, or a wave energy system.

[allrollsin21]

"Nice post douche. An entire post solely commenting on me, nothing to do with the thread. Excellent, I suppose you are the shining example of forum behavior. Maybe you should worry about yourself."


Wow you are a class act 818. Negative rep in which you call me a douche.
I read these threads out of interest and to learn. Is that OK?

Character...now there is an important issue.

[8182KSKUSH]

"likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs,"

Hey 818 you should really attempt some self control. Your posts are so reminiscent of a 10 year old bully calling people names. You seem to really struggle sticking to the facts and not putting people down. I am sure you have what you believe to be a real witty response to this post, but check yourself. Show some respect to other peoples opinions. Most of these political threads have you making absurdly exaggerated and offensive comments towards others.


"Nice post douche. An entire post solely commenting on me, nothing to do with the thread. Excellent, I suppose you are the shining example of forum behavior. Maybe you should worry about yourself."


Wow you are a class act 818. Negative rep in which you call me a douche.
I read these threads out of interest and to learn. Is that OK?

Character...now there is an important issue.

I thought that if you had something negative to say to someone, the "NEGATIVE REP" button was the right way to do it as opposed to making a post about it within a thread that is about political feelings on big oil (in this case), twice. :thumbsup: Whatever floats your boat I guess. If it makes you feel any better now I am a douche for making an off topic post too! hip hip hooray!:thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

"Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?"

The reason we do not is because of lobbyists. The people paying for the elected officials campaigns. Any current environmental taxes are nonsense. The externalities associated with these huge corporations are beyond the scope of most peoples understanding. Gas SHOULD cost well over 5$ a gallon. A t-shirt should cost a Hundred... This applies to everything at the cherished walmarts. The cost should be increased and companies should be responsible for cleaning up the mess being made of the environment. If they don't want to do it, which they have shown they do not, then they need HUGE taxes imposed so the government can do it for them. All this freedom, and american dream nonsense...if the government would let them, these companies would be pouring their toxic wastes in a hole underneath your homes.

This is not exactly the same thing, but one of the ideas that is very popular in europe these days is the idea that the producer of an item should include the cost of its disposal in the price and then be reponsible for taking it back when the conusmer is done with it. Many of the real costs of producing something are not captured in the price charged, and disposal is one of them. This is one of the reasons we are sold so much short-lived, highly-disposable, and inexpensive crap --- the cost of the waste is not captured in the price paid.

Returning to your examples, you mentioned a gallon of gas and a tee shirt. The price of a gallon of gas does not include the cost of the pollution associated with producing it, or using it. Those added costs are hard to quantify, but the are real.

The tee-shirt example is easier to understand. The price of a tee shirt made overseas does not capture the costs that would be added to it if it were produced in the US --- mostly costs associated with fair labor practices that are required or expected within the US. With regards to the tee-shirt and the other cheap Walmart crap bargains, Americans seem to want it both ways. We complain about our jobs going overseas, but we would go completely ape-shit crazy if we were asked to pay the price of a tee shirt made here in the US by an adult American making at least minimum wage, working an 8-hour day, with decent health insurance, disability insurance, Workers Comp, and Social Security. The only way we can get $4 tee shirts is by having them made overseas by children who work 12 hours a day for pennies and without any kind of healthcare or other benefits. So the way it works now is that those added costs are not captured in the price --- they are paid by the American who lost his job and by the kid overseaas working in a sweatshop under unfair labor conditions.

[khronik]

Ok, thank you for posting it. I have read this and it's nothing new. The amount of money saved saved per American is negligible here.

McCainâ??s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obamaâ??s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings.

That example was given in the article you posted. Wow, a whole extra $700 a year, that amounts to $13/week. I'm reeling in the money now.

To be honest I would rather pay that extra $700 and have my government do some good with it.
Wait... that last part contradicts like everything you've been saying.


And by the way, that article was actually really bad at outlining Obama's 'payroll tax' cut. I am confident you could've found a better article as I actually had to go out and search with keywords I found in that article to truely understand what his plan proposed.

What is interesting is what he had to say a year ago about this.

Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.
ABC News: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1)

Now he proposes his cap at 250k.

You realize that the payroll tax cut isn't really a cut but more accurately a shift in who pays the taxes. So you're right, windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, because there's not an actual cut in the payroll tax.
The initial premise of this post was that Obama was planning to use windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate. Right? I've been assuming that this is referring to his payroll tax cut, maybe I'm mistaken.


Last I checked I was talking about capital gains. Matter of fact if you were paying attention I quoted you when you listed the 20-28% figure that obama proposes to raise the Capital gains tax to. So really you seem to be the one that's confused.

Last I checked companies keep their own investment portfolios.. last I checked capital gains still effects big business in more ways than you can imagine.
You are talking about capital gains taxes, but businesses do not pay separate capital gains taxes. A business's capital gains are taxed at the same rate as any other income, so raising the capital gains tax does not affect their taxes. Of course you can and probably will argue that raising the capital gains taxes could lower investment in businesses, but that doesn't change the fact that businesses do not pay capital gains tax.


uhh.. that's great because I never accused you of supporting the war either. What are you talking about, you went way out into left field.
You flipped out when I mentioned the Iraq war. I'm still not sure what your problem was.


Warren Buffet I would be willing to listen to, but you're a self confessed person who knows nothing about investing. And you're hanging on the words of Obama, even though you don't really understand what he's saying.
I don't know nothing about investing, but I do know that an average knowledge of investing is not enough to necessarily make money. I've known plenty of people who knew a lot about investing but lost their shirts playing the stock market. I'd rather play it safe. But anyway, you said you'd be willing to listen to Warren Buffet:

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett says Obama will bring &#039;outstanding ideas&#039; to White House - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/16/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Buffett.php)


Again you realize that the president is not responsible for what the stock market does and is not responsible for your fiscal well being? Who is just about anyone else with invested money.

Since I actually take the time to analyze my stocks and pay attention to what the companies are doing I have not lost any money. My stock portfolio has risen between 15-22% each year for the last 3 years.

I am better at investment than most but you are making a huge assumption by saying "I imagine that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too." Just because you are bad with money does not mean other people are who take the time to understand the market.
I'm assuming that mutual fund managers understand the market better than I do, and probably better than you as well. So if you really are getting those kinds of yields, I'm guessing you're very lucky. Anyway, I've heard all sorts of people say that if you don't know a lot about investing and prefer minimal risk, mutual funds are the way to go. Just because I know someone that doubled his money at the casino, doesn't mean that's a good investment strategy.


Last I checked the constitution granted us freedom, not socialized services. Socialized services are services that cost money that you may or may not take part in.
Freedom to not pay taxes? Hardly.


For example, I pay medicare... but I do not get to participate in medicare, or medicaid for that matter. I didn't participate for free lunch program at school, I never qualified for any government programs growing up yet my family still had to pay into it.
I take it you went to private school? The police, fire department, and military are all "socialized services" for that matter, in that they are collectively owned. And even though you aren't participating in Medicare or Social Security now, presumably you will some day.


That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.
I resent that. I grew up fairly poor, but we never took advantage of government programs for poor people. I know it was just an example, but ditch the condescending attitude, ok?


That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.
We've had government-run charities since the beginning of the country. And who are you to say what this nation stands for? You're just one 300 millionth of it.


Honestly I feel that a good majority of the services the government provides should be done away with. It is a waste of our tax dollars. I am not talking about welfare or medicare but our government is notoriously bad with spending our money. Why should we have to pay more money so they can spend more on programs that the majority of the population won't get to use.
I attached a graph of the US Federal discretionary budget. Where do you think cuts should be made?


So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.
Well, 12 years total in elected office by the time he's planning on being president. It's low, but not unprecedented. Our least experienced presidents have been some of our best, ie Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.


You took the time to obviously read through my long response and try to rebuttal with your own, yet this is too much work?

More like you can't do it, and even if you can you've probably been working the google on your internet machine to try to dig something up. The fact is that in comparison to other senators his list of actual accomplishments is pathetic and just about non existant.
To be honest, I didn't even try. You were demanding me write you an essay, practically. Fuck that.


Texas state senator, US congressmen or a city council person. It doesn't matter, this is a guy who went on national TV to endorse Obama. If you are going to say you support someone and that you stand behind them you better have a good reason for doing it.

If you can't name even one accomplishment from that candidate then it raises alot of flags. Why would a state senator support someone he knows nothing about. This doesn't alarm you AT ALL?
It's one guy who went blank on national television. Anyway, here's some stuff he accomplished:

Obsidian Wings: Obama: Actually, I Think We Can (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html)

[daihashi]

To be honest, I didn't even try. You were demanding me write you an essay, practically. Fuck that.

Thank you captain obvious from the university of "I already knew that". Of course you didn't try. I didn't need you to spell it out. If you take the time to reply to my posts which are admittingly pretty long winded usually, then you could've invested that time to write 5 sentences to list 1 accomplishment and a few words about how it's an achievement. Not exactly difficult.

But you have your right to not comply.



It's one guy who went blank on national television. Anyway, here's some stuff he accomplished:

Oh man, do you want me to bust out a list of videos of democrats who have less than great things to say about Obama? He was an example, I can give you more if you want that are similar.



Obsidian Wings: Obama: Actually, I Think We Can (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html)

WOW!!!! is this actually the source of your information? This is a blog, on top of that it doesn't actually name any accomplishments. Did you actually even read that blog. Proposals are not accomplishments!

It initially outlines what many MANY senators currently do, but only acknowledges Obama's efforts. There is a difference between sponsoring on something, proposing something and achieving/working on something.

Here is a list of actual legislation Obama sponsored. You'll find that he only has 5 items that have been approved for senate and a massively long list of things that are pending for approval and another smaller list of things that they're thinking about voting on. It's wikipedia but it's a better source of information than your blog as it actually sources it's information on this article:

List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_Uni ted_States_Senate)

Here are the 5 items that he got approved for senate. Hardly achievements.


110 S.RES. 133 Whereas Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson was born in 1939 to Bishop W.A. and Mrs. Mary Patterson, Sr., in Humboldt, Tennessee; ATS

110 S.RES. 268 Designating July 12, 2007, as `National Summer Learning Day'. ATS

109 S.RES. 291 To congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship. ATS

109 S.RES. 516 Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and... ATS

109 S.RES. 529 Designating July 13, 2006, as `National Summer Learning Day'. ATS

Of the only things Barack has done that was of signifigance hasn't been voted on and the federal funding accountability and transparency act of 2006, which was enacted into law. I felt that this was actually a GREAT idea but I've been less than impressed with it since it's deployment.

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006)
Welcome to USAspending.gov (http://www.usaspending.gov/)

I'm done replying to this thread. I put effort into my posts and wish to converse with others who do the same. It took me all of 15 minutes to look up that information.

Everyone else have a good discussion. :thumbsup:

[allrollsin21]

"Returning to your examples, you mentioned a gallon of gas and a tee shirt. The price of a gallon of gas does not include the cost of the pollution associated with producing it, or using it. Those added costs are hard to quantify, but the are real."


Dragon this is what i believe should be accounted for in the cost of goods and services. When one takes a close look at the lifespan of something as simple as a Compact Disc or White Cotton T-shirt, it is scary.
The Shirt begins as the cotton plant which is an extremely intensive water using plant. Also growers of cotton have traditionally used the whole gamut of pesticide/herbicide/fungicide in a preemptive fashion. The chemicals DO leach into soil and waterways. Also the soil itself is being depleted and overused from the intensive applications. Now after the machinery or poverty labor is used to harvest, the cotton is then TRANSPORTED to a Mill. Mills known to be large polluters due to the fact they use lots of chemicals then go to town on the cotton to turn it to fabric. Softeners, bleach, more machinery and man made chemicals. Now time to transport the cotton fabric to where it will be turned into shirts, wrapped in plastic (which has its own long polluting lifespan....etc etc. Final result being Bright White T-Shirts on Walmart shelves. Selling for about the price of a bottle of water. Who is paying for the REAL Cost of producing these. We are, the public. Through destruction of the worlds resources, skies, and waterways.
D-rider you are right nobody wants to pay. Most folks are happy to get there deals at walmart pretending to be ignorant to the damage they are supporting, and the big business doing these things, well we know what Concern$ them. What to do?
I think business need to be forced to clean up after themselves. These sources of pollution are hardly quantifiable, but they need to be accounted for one way or another. Europe as you mentioned has taken the lead, and we would be intelligent to follow. They have been doing it for longer than GW has been our president.
From a personal standpoint be aware of what it is you purchase. Money is a vote. It supports or protests whether you use it or do not. Food...local. If it comes in a package, try harder to find something that doesnt.
Goods and services, BUY SUSTAINABLE. Hemp Rope is as strong as Nylon. Ever seen a Nylon plant before??? It has black smoke pouring out of it. Ever seen a Hemp plant before??? Oh yes you have!!
Reuse!! Forget about recycling its for the lazy...Reuse is about 20-50% more efficient. Single servings...hell NO! Family style. Grow your own, not just herbs...