How true.No wonders hookers never go through a recession.
Then why aren't the Demos screaming from the hilltops that Bush won't let them pass their reforms? Where are the Democratic presidential candidates vowing to take care of this travesty?
Again, it's because they are taking the money too. Remember the midterm elections? Pelosi swore the Demos were going to change everything and get done in D.C.. When in actually they just wanted to get their piece of the lobbyist pie and sell the American public down the road too.
Democrats need to stand up to the president. That is what the voters wanted during the last elections. They have not been able to get anything accomplished. Look for republicans to pick up some seats next time.
Damn it!!!!
"Demos have been in control for a year now, so what's their excuse"
Here's nice little summary of how the Repugs/conservatives have been admittedly obstructionist since the Dems won control:
==============
Bill Scher
Record-Breaking Obstruction: How It Screwed You
Posted December 19, 2007 | 10:23 PM (EST)
Today is a day that will live in legislative infamy. Conservatives in the U.S. Senate set a modern day record for obstruction, forcing the 62nd cloture vote to move beyond a filibuster -- breaking the record for a two-year congressional session with a full year to spare.
To mark the day, Campaign for America's Future released a new report on the conservative "Block and Blame" strategy, detailing the year's cavalcade of obstruction. The report reminds us of Sen. Trent Lott's all-too-candid words from April, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it's working for us."
It's certainly true, if not terribly insightful, that obstructionism can either work or fail.
When it works, it's because you obstructed things that voters didn't want in the first place -- like privatizing Social Security.
When it fails, it's because you obstructed things that voters want their government to do.
What have conservatives obstructed this year? Here's just a partial list:
-- Ending the disastrous occupation of Iraq.
-- Providing health insurance to millions more kids.
-- Empowering Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.
-- Taking away handouts to Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy.
-- Repealing the effective ban on embryonic stem cell research.
-- Investing more in health research.
-- Making it easier for workers to join unions.
-- Investing more in fighting poverty and training workers.
Is obstructing all of that popular legislation "working" for Republicans?
Here's the approval rating for congressional Republicans this month:
-- According to USA Today/Gallup: 26%.
-- According to ABC/W. Post: 32%
-- According to the Harris poll: 23%
Bravo, obstruction.
Yes, the rating for Democrats is not great either.
But it's higher than the Republicans in two of the three polls -- USA Today/Gallup says 30% and ABC/W. Post says 40%.
And considering that all of the above initiatives boast majority support from the public, clearly the frustration with Democrats is not what they're fighting for, but how hard they're fighting.
That doesn't translate into any additional support for the conservative obstructionists.
The only hope the obstructionists have is for the media to fail to inform the voters what is being obstructed.
And since we know we can't rely on the media to tell the full story, it's up to us to spread the word.
Well, I went ahead and gave your article a pretty good read. Seems like there are three components to this post.
1) Your claim that Oil Companies are manipulating the numbers to make it appear that they have low profit margins
2) They are not increasing production as they claim via capital projects
3) The companies are hoarding cash instead of reinvesting it
I won't get into #1 for a couple of reasons, most notably the fact that these are standard accounting conventions. There are no "tricks" involved, unless you still find a waking up and finding that the sun has risen in the east a magical and unexplainable event.
In regards to #2. You can look at this a lot of ways, but in the end it is as the article states. They are spending tremendous sums of money just to maintain the status quo. This should come as no surprise. Drilling for oil is an expensive endevor, and its not like these crude resevoirs are being refilled by munchkins living in the earth's core - they are a depleting resource, and one we will eventually be virtually "out" of. We will likely never physically run out of oil, but the dynamics of supply and demand will price oil to where no longer is any demand before we actually run out.
Looking at it from the proper perspective, the incremental perspective, however tells us that spending money to maintain the status quo is indeed increasing production when you analyze at the margin. Spending no money and maintaining production of the past is not an option. Compared to the option of doing nothing, the money spent by companies is indeed increasing production. This isn't some oil company trick, this is just the application of the most basic economic analysis technique. You need to analyze things at the margin, or against their next best alternative. Either way, however, its semantics.
Item #3, that they are hoarding cash and chosing to pay their shareholders before investing in new production. Well... uh yeah, they are and it is their right to do so. After all, its their money. There are only so many investment options for a company to engage in and just because they have cash doesn't necessarily mean they have a project that is economically justifiable compared to the next best alternative.
The management of these companies are not employed in order to make the world a happier place, they are employed in order to return value to their shareholders (like all companies). Sure, these companies have more projects they COULD invest in, but they generate less of a return than things such as share buy-backs. If they began investing the money in projects that are sub-optimal, they wouldn't be employed very long. This applies outside of oil companies, obviously.
Of course, Dan, I know you already know these things. Your true colors of being nothing more than a whiner show when you post these things. Unfortunately such spin works on 95% of the populace who don't make the effort to think through them more logically. So in that regard, I guess you win.
Nevermind that petroleum through its products is an essential part of our everyday lives and those firms help to extract, produce, refine, and deliver those products to us efficiently and expeditiously. Then again, it wouldn't be America without someone ing about the hand that feeds them.
Americans about the firms that extract petroleum and bring it to market so that they can travel where they want to, when they want to, as well as enjoy the other myriad products derived from petroleum.
Americans about the illegal immigrants who risk much to come to this country and work jobs for pay so that Americans don't have to.
Americans about taxes being too high, that the government isn't doing enough for them, and that the government is spending too much.
Americans that the country isn't what it used to be and that they are falling behind, yet are too lazy to get off the couch in front of their new HD flat panel big screen to do something about it.
Wow... I didn't know we were dictating all the actions over there.
The way the bill was written, it would have mostly moved children off private insurance to tax paid insurance. You find that good?
I don't know the whole story here, but part of it deals with the US law. Other countries can get breaks because they cannot sue the same way we Americans can. Lawsuits, lawyers, etc. is why out healthcare costs are so high. What do you expect when some professions have to pay about $250,000 per year for malpractice insurance.
Handouts? I don't wee it that way with the amount of taxes they pay. You Marxists just don't think they pay enough.
There is no ban of embryonic research. Get your facts strait please. It's just that federal dollars cannot fund the programs.
The free market is the best way. Want to fix it. Two words: Tort Reform.
Please stop asking the g0overnemnt to spend more money it doesn't have without trying somthing that costs nothing first.
I didn't know it was hard. Besides, very few unions are good for hard working people. They reward the slackers, treating everyone equal when we all have different levels of ap ude, integrity, motivation, etc. I am one that unions hold back because the idiots get the same wages as I go, and it is exceptionally frustrating.
There has been no gain on the war with poverty. I say eliminate most social welfare sorvice. Keep the short term help, and make career recipients find work, or dump them in the street.
There has been good legislation from the democrats?
Where?
Exactly.
That's all well and good...but from my POV it's very simple.
I've visited the Google website probably about once in the past year....I drive a car to go to work/school almost everyday. I don't need to go to Google and find a damn map....I do need to go to school and work...I don't give a crap about Google having great profits...I don't need Google.
But the entire world revolves around oil...with the current state of technology anyone who denies themselves oil are fools. I'm not a fool...and if I could I would ride a bike to work and school..but I can't. The reality is the world makes it impossible to do anything without a car. And the oil companies exploit that reality...very badly.
Just so I am clear on your point, Duff, you are saying that because oil companies provide something you NEED and Google just provides some luxury WANT, oil companies should get less of a return on the billions of dollars they spend to provide you this thing that you need?
Stated differently, you propose that the market should be distorted so that providing "wants" generates high returns while providing "necessities" should be done in an almost charitable sort of way?
I wonder would that would do to the incentives for where people and companies will invest their funds... hmmm... I can build an oil refinery and earn no return or I can invest in a company that makes penis pumps and make a 500% return... hmmmm... where should I put my money?
Why can't you take a bike to work or school? Impossible my ass.
You and anti-war demos are right. We should withdraw immediately and let them all kill each other over there. Then we could be on the hook for a couple million dead thanks to genocide.
All the Republicans blocked was taking something that was more or less privately funded and shifting the tax burden onto the American public. Personally I'm thankful for that.-- Providing health insurance to millions more kids.
It's not about empowerment. Tort reform is what needed, but all your punk ass Democratic lawyer types don't want to see tort reform enacted.-- Empowering Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.
Yet it's perfectly okay for Demos in Congress to subsidize ethanol production and subsequently increase the cost of all agriculture products due to the strain on our farming system to produce said ethanol.-- Taking away handouts to Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy.
Embryonic stem cell research wasn't banned, just government funding for it.-- Repealing the effective ban on embryonic stem cell research.
There's a load of money invested in health research. The problem is a lot has to go to cover legal expenses. You want more money in health research? Support tort reform.-- Investing more in health research.
Did you not pay attention to what happened with the auto workers? Unions are bad. All that happens with unions is those in power get rich, production and efficiency decreases, and the slackers at their jobs hide behind the skirt of the union while doing a piss poor job at their job.-- Making it easier for workers to join unions.
Do a good job and you don't have to worry about the union covering your ass.
Oh wait, you want to see every company crash and burn like GM thanks to being enslaved to pension funds for union folk. ing wake up croutons.
How does one fight poverty? There are plenty of job programs for those that want it. The problem is you have a segment of society that wants to free load and have everything handed to it, and no amount of training or work programs is going to change that.-- Investing more in fighting poverty and training workers.
You've got too many folks who would rather pop out another kid and live off welfare, WIC, etc. than get off their ass and earn a decent wage.
Where's the Democraptic numbers at? Be fair, croutons.-- According to USA Today/Gallup: 26%.
-- According to ABC/W. Post: 32%
-- According to the Harris poll: 23%
Unions were useful in the early 1900's up until the 70's or so. It was a different time and atmosphere. Companies were making huge profits and paying workers nearly nothing, on top of that working conditions were horrid, hours were long, many manufacturing jobs were especially dangerous (coal miners, iron/steel workers, etc.). At that time they were the right thing to do, they actually cared more about the worker. Now unions have become corporations themselves, and have become just what they organizing against when they began.-- Making it easier for workers to join unions.
Bush and Repubs are against unions, therefore they are great[/uninformed twit, aka boutons]
That's funny...Then who's profits are those sitting in those Cayman Island accounts so that they don't have to be declared and taxed in the U.S.? Of course, Oil companies fix the books, they've been doing it for so long it doesn't even bat the Federal investigatory eye-brow anymore...Your claim that Oil Companies are manipulating the numbers to make it appear that they have low profit margins
..and so it comes down to the weakness of Globalization...business is not 'in business' to make the world a better place, it's certainly not 'in business' to make this world a more friendlier place, and it's certainly also not 'in business' to make this world a more equitable place..nothing spells that out better than the current consumption rates of gas and oil.....less than 5% percent of people on this planet consume 40% of the gas produced world-wide - us...per capita, we consume the most produced food, the most durable products, the most cars and trucks, the most...the most...the most....The management of these companies are not employed in order to make the world a happier place.
....Globalization wasn't supposed to be about 12-13-14 year old kids working 12-13-14 hour days in Asian sweat-shop so that Timmy back in America or Great Britain could have a little-bit less expensive present under the tree on Christmas..Globalization wasn't supposed to be about shuttering factories in American cities because they could not compete with sweat-shops in China or Mexico that pay as little as 40 cents per hour....Globalization wasn't supposed to be about sending Alaskan oil, so vital to the strategic importance of our own country if you listened hard enough to those eager to dig in ANWR...to Japan....while we are forced to purchase oil from dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran....
...somewhere along the line, Globalization got ed up....and you wanna know why? You really want to know why? Because business is not 'in business' to make this a better world......
When you begin stooping to conspiracy theories and accusations such as this, I know you are pretty much out of things to say. Thanks for participating.
A nice diatribe, and a convincing one if you ever thought globalization was supposed to be about any of those things. Globalization is about one thing and one thing only, maximizing total economic social welfare. Sending Alaskan oil to Japan while sending Saudi oil to Texas may not sound like it makes sense if you are completely ignorant as to the workings of hydroprocessing chemistry and basic knowledge of the shipping industry. It is done not because we love the Saudi's, it is because it is what makes most economic sense. The oil is a better fit at the refineries it gets send to (recall, not all oil is created equal), the delivered costs of the oil (cost of oil + cost of transporting it to the refinery) makes most sense, etc.
What made you think business was ever about making the world a fuzzier, happier place? A primary axiom of human nature is that people respond to incentives. Business being in business to turn a profit isn't the result of a masterminded scheme of evil oil barons, it is the natural result of millenia of human beings simple responding to incentives.
You may long for the land Raphael Hythloday spun a yard about. A secular, communist city-state governed by reason where people act unselfishly in order maximize the well being of others. But even More, Marx and Engels knew that Utopia was aptly named in that it could never exist in a world of inherently selfish men.
There are no problems with globalization, there are merely problems with individuals like you trying to evaluate it outside of the framework of reality. Trying to posit a place where people are not guided by their own self interested and where incentives are not required to induce action. It is nice and honorable to hold some Utopian ideals, but it is the man who fails to adapt them to the reality of human nature and the world around us who is the biggest fool of them all: the fool who has been so caught up by the promise of delusion that he can no longer seperate said delusion from the real world.
In the end, Dan, your latest example is a shining one on how you are no different from he who denies evolution, or global warming, or the notion that police state-like powers abroad weaken civil liberties at home, etc. You deny the basic tenent of business, which like it or not is what shapes every part of human life. The concept is no different on Park Avenue than it is in some small village in the remote reaches of the vast Chinese wilderness.
Your problem is not with business, or globalization, it is with human nature. This is an unfortunate problem to have, because millions of years of evolution and 6+ billion minds won't easily have their respective natural emotional and intellectual states changed.
Have you paid your debts yet?
Dan, that has to hurt . . .
Well said. Unions are as corrupt, or more so than the employers they supposable protect their people from.
You wanna see corrupt unions . . . come on down (to Argie-town)
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy theory....
Public Citizen.orgWASHINGTON, D.C. – On Oct. 17, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded an $849,670 grant to a subsidiary of the oil drilling company Noble Corporation, whose incorporation in the Cayman Islands enables it to avoid paying some of its U.S. income taxes. But Noble Corp.’s official headquarters is in Sugar Land, Texas – the home district of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Public Citizen today issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the DOE to determine whether DeLay or any other member of Congress interceded in the grant-making process on behalf of Noble Corp.
Global PolicyU.S. oil and gas companies have at least 882 subsidiaries located in oil-free tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and even the tiny European principality of Liechtenstein, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found. Further, the investigation revealed that at least a half dozen U.S. oil and gas companies have actually re-incorporated in tax haven countries.
Halliburton WatchAs investigators from 60 Minutes discovered, Halliburton has used an offshore subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to trade with Iran, a country that the Bush administration has described as part of an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."2
Washington PostHalliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.
"We are in the service business, not the foreign-policy business," she said. "We have followed and will continue to follow applicable laws."
I thought you really wanted to deal in reality Scott, but if you want to keep playing these games, I'm game....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
