You are Big oil

[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

[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)
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