| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:45:24 PM | thank you, i thought so myself. but so you know i am not a texas oilman. true i live in texas, now. but, i am an investor in energy and oil and gas in particular. I want you to go a website and take a look at the chart for BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust, ticker symbol BPT. Where were you when the price dropped to 5 bucks and my cost basis was 15? Where were you when I bucked all the logic of the day and stuck with it? And added to the position as the price remained flat to down for 15 years. Where were you just two months ago before Western Gas Reserves (WES) came public as an IPO? Did you step up and take the risk?
So you'll forgive me if I take offense to the tag "texas oilman" as if it were a bad thing. I have spent years researching oil and gas companies, drilling companies, oil service companies, refiners and and the like. I have put at risk MY money to invest in this industry which provides the basis for the greatest economy in the world. You sit in SF reaping the benifits of this economy provided by countless investors like me without ever risking a thing.
While I don't expect a thank you or even an acknowlegement of what we've have help to provide for you to enjoy, a little less mindless pontification on a subject about which are you are totally ignorant would be nice. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:51:46 PM | Triumvirat,
Your ignorance is just as glowing.
I'm sure you rail for corporate tax cuts and to cut taxes on the top end like all the little supply side monkeys even though there is no empirical evidence that this works.
the lower we cut taxes on the rich and corporations over the last 40 years, the worse average GDP got.
1950s corp tax rate 52% top inc tax bracket 89% avg GDP growth/yr 4.1%
1960s corp tax rate 52-48% top inc tax bracket 80% avg GDP growth/yr 4.4%
1970s corp tax rate 48-46% top inc tax bracket 70% avg GDP growth/yr 3.3%
1980s corp tax rate 45-34% top inc tax bracket 39% avg GDP growth/yr 3.1%
1990s corp tax rate 35-38% top inc tax bracket 36% avg GDP growth/yr 3.1%
2000's corp tax rate 33% top inc tax bracket 35% avg GDP growth/yr 2.8% | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:58:08 PM | Well, cpfstock, I can appreciate your feelings about this, and you have identified some policies/issues that I wasn't aware of and that I will (for one) look into, since I asked about them in the first place. BUT, it's just not the case that every policy decision can be (or SHOULD be) about the cost of fuel. There are other considerations to take into account as well when it comes to each individual policy decision, EVEN if those don't turn into profits for American investors and cost reductions for American consumers.
And I'm sorry, but I just don't think that you did all this risking in your investing for the good of mankind....did you? If not, where's all the "where were you when...." coming from?
| |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:58:42 PM | Yep, you get what you pay for! When taxes are cut then everything goes down the drain. Excellent research that makes a valuable point--the rich should pay their fair share, as should corporations. I am tired of people who think that low taxes is the most important thing of all. They fail to see the big picture and the role of taxation within our society. It's just outright unrealistic to expect things to run smoothly with overly low taxes. This Bushboy borrowing and spending must be kicked to the curb, and the rates that provide for better economic growth put back in place. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:02:46 PM | | You know what would really help the Obama supporters on this test? A good old fashion Town Hall debated televised nationally. Wouldn't that be great? We could see what the candidates truly intend for America. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:06:02 PM | CPF,
that's fine if you want to take the risk, you're in the risk business.
business is risk. life is risk.
but if i get in financial trouble, the govt doesn't bail me out.
not like all the speculators who lost their shirts in the mexico peso crisis. did they live with the risk? no they got their money back thanks to american tax payers.
or these currency speculators who lost their shirts in the asian tiger crisis. did they live with the risk? no. they got their money back thanks to american tax payers.
and in the current home crisis, what about all those banks who bought up the mortgage backed securities? you don't think the taxpayer will make sure those speculators get their money back?
that's not captialism, that's corporate welfare, socialism, or facism.
as a taxpayer i don't have a lot of sympathy. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:12:13 PM | | and GDP for those years was what??? what part of the world economy was the US then as compared to now? it's just not a valid comparison. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:25:57 PM | designingwoman,
just what would be their "fair" share? by that do you mean we should have a flat tax. i mean if everyone paid the same percentage of income, would that not be "fair".
"the rates that provide for better economic growth." there has not been a tax reduction since the JFK (because he was a communist) cut in the 60's that has not increase the rate of economic expansion.
and pray tell just what is the "role of taxation" within our society. besides ensuring the defense of the nation and providing for the common good what is the legitimate role of taxation. | |
|
| |
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:32:26 PM | That's right nomad and I just wanna let you know that my lil piggy, Wilbur ovah heerah is gonna fly any day now...what I would give for a copy of *that* list of talking points.....
Obama '08 | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:34:26 PM | no JFK was not a communist. close but no  no that's the Kevin Bacon line from the movie JFK. He's talking to the DA (Jim Garrison) about the assination and says "you wanna know why JFK was shot? I'll tell you why, because ........ dramatic pause ............. he was a communist." Just happens to be one of my favorite lines from a movie is all. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:41:59 PM | | ^^^ i'm glad to hear that cpf as i'm learning a lot by your exchanges with erik and i was getting sad that you were just another nut job.... please continue.... | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:45:58 PM | | crash, i'm glad you are enjoying the back and forth. but, these are serious matters which we are discussing. and, i believe he and obama are fundamentally wrong. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:49:06 PM | | ^^^ indeed, it is very serious.... that's why i find it so interesting..... but who is "he"? | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:00:38 PM | cpf,
for your edification, the texas oil man comment was not intended to be condescending in only implied that you had a larger financial interest in your end of the argument. i don't find the term derogatory at all.
and in no way would i put you in the same boat as some of the less scrupulous investors who may require regulation to keep them in the lines.
that's just for your info. i did check out the royalty trust and it's so much info my head is spinning. another margarita! | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:02:00 PM | erik would be the he. a tax increase at this point is exactly the wrong thing to do. with the current credit situation anything that would remove capital from the economy is a very bad idea. this credit crisis is not over by a long shot.
another thing i have never understood is the tax the rich thing. the last i looked the top 1% of income bracket was paying 37-38% of all federal income taxes. how is that not fair??
secondly, i just can't see gov't making the investment choices for energy development. you can take a billion or so from big oil, but by the time it runs through the gov't we'll be lucky if a quarter of it ever produces any meaningful results. the rest will be boondoggled off or eaten up by a gov't agency or two.
i believe the private sector can and will deal with it. here is a little tidbit of info. right now the largest increase in shipping at the Port of Freeport has been in wind generators. Someone is starting to put capital to work in this area. I don't know who, if I did I might see if I could "profit" from it. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:09:42 PM | | well then you see oil and gas isn't always this profitable. don't see anyone complaining about prices when oil companies aren't really making any money. but when the do, then someone has to be blamed. oil companies are gouging, speculators driving up the price, etc and so on. it is pure bs. we need to drill. we should start monday. try this on for size. not only has the price of crude seen a parobalic rise but outside the scope or attention of most here's another little piece of the pie. we import a lot of oil, gasoline and other refined products (thanks to our bad energy policies of the past). those imports come in tankers. the spot price for Suezmax and Duramax tankers has gone from 28K and 38K a day last year to 64K and 84K today. How much do you think that is added to the price of a gallon of gas. Now you can complain about it or go buy some stock in NAT and/or FRO. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:14:41 PM | | One more thing. Everyone is complaining about the rise in crude prices. Crude oil futures are up a lot this year no doubt. Corn futures are up more on a percentage basis. Why is nobody complaining about that? I mean oil companies take their profits and go look for more oil or build refineries. What happens to the excess profits on corn. Does it go to growing more corn? No, it's just eaiser to rail against big oil than the american farmer from a political standpoint. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:16:45 PM |
the last i looked the top 1% of income bracket was paying 37-38% of all federal income taxes. how is that not fair??
... i agree... it is fair.... but i don't think that's what you meant....
how about this explanation - the top 1% use the commons (highways, rail, military to protect their interests, infrastructure in general) to make their money. they are using these things more than the rest of us and should therefore pay in taxes to keep these things running so they can keep making their money.
to turn it around - why should i as a traditional tanner who doesn't even leave home to do my work and collects most of my materials from the woods around me pay a flat tax, or something else that "seems" fairer when i hardly use the infrastructure?
... but maybe i misunderstand what your saying..... | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:22:36 PM | cpf,
the top 1% may contribute 38% of the tax revenue, but they also own almost an equal amount of the wealth in this country.
however half your gdp is due to expenditures by households that earn less than 80k a year. if you cut taxes for a millionaire, he's not going to buy more clothes or milk, his needs are met.
if you cut taxes on the poor and middle class, they'll actually spend that money. if their wages don't keep up with their productivity then they won't buy as much as produced and the rich won't buy double of everything.
if 80k and less bracket don't buy then business will have leftover product and won't use their tax cut to invest in more business and they may layoff due to low demand.
cutting the top tax bracket doesn't have the same effect as lowering the low bracket.
reagan made it worse by lowering the progressive tax and increasing the regressive taxes (social security & excise taxes). essentially raised taxes on the poor to cut taxes for the rich and corporations.
bush II cut taxes on the rich and corporations again and is financing it with a tax increase on the middle class through the AMT.
this means that the middling and lower classes have even net income to spend.
in the long run this results in lower gdp, higher unemployment, exponentially higher profits, increased stock speculation, and market bubbles.
the system was prolonged throughout the 90's with the massive accumulation of personal debt to finance the purchase of unsold supply, but Americans are tapped out now in the credit debt. so, i would say that the stock bubble has yet to burst. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:24:17 PM | but those that use the infastructure more do pay more. they pay more gas taxes for driving more, they pay more freight charges (and now a fuel surcharge), they pay road tolls.
i'm not an advocate of a flat tax. but nor do i think the "rich" are not paying their fair share. besides you raise the rates too high and all that income gets shifted to other less taxed investments (tax free municipal bonds for example) or moved out of the country completely. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:31:22 PM | | i have to take exception to the statement regan raised SS taxes. SS is a democratic program period. they controlled congress for 40 years. it was democrats that brought it into being, have raised the payroll taxes time after time to keep it afloat, have taken the excess contributions and spent them to pay off their political base, and decided once they took my money and forced me into a negative return investment that they'll tax the benefit too. it is the worst gov't program ever started with medicare a close second. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:31:56 PM | ^^^ i thought of that... do you have any data, if its possible to figure all the combined taxes, that the top 1% pays in federal taxes and not just income?
also, don't forget about the military which is often protecting the interests of this elite group (as as GB calls them "my base") in other countries....especially in relation to oil......and the military budget is a big part of the federal budget where these taxes are going | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:34:14 PM | cpf,
i think you can make the case that you can raise taxes too high.
in the 60's when the top tax rate was near 90% the rich folks just found other ways to declare their income to avoid paying taxes. This is why the alternative minimum tax law went in which i'm sure you're familar with in your royalty trust.
i think we can agree that 90% or the 70% bracket of the 70's or the 50% bracket of the 80's was confiscatory and not fair.
i think the problem with cutting the taxes for the rich, was not so much that it cut the riched, but it was financed by increasing taxes for the poor and middle classes and or cutting their services.
the income tax is the only progressive tax we have. payroll, excise, sales taxes are regressive. but they have gone up when the taxes on the rich have come down which means those cuts were financed by the poor.
when reagan made his tax cut, he not only raised social security taxes, but reduced ss benefits for the elderly, and raised the retirement age.
then instead of repealing his tax reduction for the rich and corporations he raided the social security surplus and still ran a debt that we still live with and will probably have to tax our way out of. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:41:16 PM | i have to take exception to the statement regan raised SS taxes. SS is a democratic program period. they controlled congress for 40 years. it was democrats that brought it into being, have raised the payroll taxes time after time to keep it afloat, have taken the excess contributions and spent them to pay off their political base, and decided once they took my money and forced me into a negative return investment that they'll tax the benefit too. it is the worst gov't program ever started with medicare a close second.
cpf,
it was a pay as you go system until reagan decided he needed to close the deficit that his tax cut would create. greenspan said the system would need to run a surplus to cover baby boomers so they increased the ss tax, cut the benefits, and increased the retirement age.
in 2 years it was running a surplus. the democrats then wanted to reduce the ss tax back to where it was, but greenspan argued to keep it where it was and wanted to make more cuts in service.
instead of rescinding his tax cut for the rich and corporations, reagan kept the ss tax increase and then raided the surplus to finance his deficit.
he passed a law to make it illegal, but did it anyway.
to be fair, reagan and greenspan got the democratic congress to go along with the plan and it's been that way ever since.
it wasn't in any danger and it was operating just fine until they went and fooled with it. now all the money in it is being used to finance these record deficits and the war in iraq. | |
|
Home
login 
