You are Big oil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

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!

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.