|
|
|
|
|
| | are the gas prices killing you yetPage 24 of 27 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) | Talk about squealing tune into some off the sorry looser's talking about the Wisconsin elections!
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the azz.
Here is a fact......
in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the butt? Back in Febuary 2009 President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years.
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
He is still blaming Bush and earthquake, tsunami ECT ECT ECT.......
BTW people can read you know and everything you posted has been rebutted with facts.
And while you might still be here your leftwing socialist party will not be in charge.
I hope Mr. Romney will use his executive pen at least as much as obozo has.
And the ky jelly will not be needed anymore.
You have to love it when they revert to crying because they have no more debate points.
Get ready we are taking America back. That includes the energy sector it will be great to get back to pre-obozo gas prices. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/9/2012 7:35:40 PM | Funny, I don't recall Obama blaming anybody, maybe he made an unwise prediction, in terms of how long the recovery will take. No one can help all those who view economic change like a sitcom, or tv melodrama. You don't turn things around like they do on TV, in 30 or 60 minutes! There is no "economic growth switch", that a republican can flip and turn back on the lights.
"That includes the energy sector it will be great to get back to pre-obozo gas prices"
Gee, either you have the world's shortest memory, or the attention span of a gnat. No, I don't wish to insult you, I want you to remember WHICH president had the highest oil prices. Hint: it wasn't Obama, but shrub at $155 a barrell. Maybe you can look up a chart to refresh your memory.
Oil companies are profit driven, not unlike any other corporation. With worldwide demand what it is today, with the growth of the economies of China and India, do you really believe, multinational oil companies will simply say "awww, you poor americans have had enough of high gas prices, let me give away my product for less than it would command elsewhere"? Hahahahahaa!! Talk about naive.
"get ready we are taking America back."
Sorry pal, but America never left, it's still in the same place, it's just being run by someone trying to hold people accountable for their actions. Unlike shrub and his lax approach to regulation which sent our economy into a tailspin, by unregulating the banks and their CDO-MBO shell game that almost brought down the world economy.
But I can see you fail to understand the game and what will happen. I betcha I can give you a prediction now though. One which I'm fairly sure will come to pass, should gawd forbid Romney and the republicants gain control, even partial control.
Their in hock up to their eyeballs to the special interests, who are fronting the loot for their "buy america for us" campaign style. So here's the game plan, that I'm sure is a republicant wet dream and entirely too possible, I'm afraid.
They will shortly after taking office propose a one time tax holiday or extreme discount on rates, for that $2 TRILLION American multinationals have parked offshore. They will say, this will kickstart the economy, incentivize american corporations to hire and expand business. They will wave the flag, we will hear the "what's best for America" jingle and it will come down to a squeaker in the Senate. Some backboneless dems will cave under pressure, and fear of being turned out of office and vote for the measure.
Then what do you think will happen? BUPKIS!!!! Hahaahahaha!!!
The corporations will bring the money onshore, pay a pittance in taxes on it. The republican candidates will have paid their marker, the lobbyists will collect their fee, the corporations will use the excuse of retained earnings for future growth and investment. Then they will pay some of the executives outrageous bonuses and stock options. They will hire a few people people, make a publicity ploy out of it. Maybe throw a bone to the stockholders with a special dividend or increase the quarterly dividend by a few cents.
Then they will turn away and laugh. There are NO jobs to give. They already shipped those 4 million jobs overseas, and most likely they ain't NEVER coming back.
Oh btw, that's when the KY will be needed. Because the tax dollars they don't pay, WON'T go to pay down the debt. So it will be on you, your children and your children's children to foot the bill.
And pal, that ain't crying, that's just the reality of how these guys think. It's not personal, it's just business. Sorry, been there, done that got the t-shirt. Believe me I know, I was one of those guys who worked in the finance industry and know exactly how this works. I was right on the Facebook IPO and even said it on another thread, BEFORE it happened, I will be right here as well. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/9/2012 8:46:26 PM |
Funny, I don't recall Obama blaming anybody
That is right you don't watch real news. So they most likely has not shown the blame obozo spews.
There is no "economic growth switch", that a republican can flip and turn back on the lights.
Funny Governor Walker has done better with Wisconsin in 18 months than Obozo has with the nation.
Gee, either you have the world's shortest memory, or the attention span of a gnat. No, I don't wish to insult you, I want you to remember WHICH president had the highest oil prices. Hint: it wasn't Obama, but shrub at $155 a barrell. Maybe you can look up a chart to refresh your memory.
Gas prices have over doubled since obozo took office.
Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/04/09/gas-prices-grow-more-under-obama-than-carter
Gas under bush went up 20%
Gas under obozo went up 103.79% that is higher than the second worse president Jimmy Carter.
And I have a short memory? Keep it up it is sooooo easy debunking your lies. Notice that didn't come from FOX!
Oh btw, that's when the KY will be needed. Because the tax dollars they don't pay, WON'T go to pay down the debt. So it will be on you, your children and your children's children to foot the bill.
I have already shown obozo has spent over a TRILLION a year more than Bush.
It is obozo that is saddling our future generations with unsustainable debt.
Please keep this up as obozo record is being hid by him the more people that gets to see just how horrid a president he is the better. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/9/2012 10:29:24 PM |
Gas under bush went up 20%
Gas under obozo went up 103.79% that is higher than the second worse president Jimmy Carter.
And I have a short memory? Keep it up it is sooooo easy debunking your lies. Notice that didn't come from FOX!
No, worse, it came from a blog, that totally ignored what happened DURING presidencies and just took the numbers from beginning and the end. To get the real scoop, people should use that link an read the comments. The readers are smarter than the blogger at that site.
In may 2004 the average US gas price was 1.86 a gallon. By July 2008 the average gas price was 4.12 a gallon. When the world economy drove off a cliff in August/September 2008 gas prices plummeted to a low point of 1.61 cents a gallon by January 2009.
Also:
2002 Oil production fell 0.96%, 2003 production fell another 1.13%, 2004 Production fell another 4.61%, 2005 production fell another 4.44%. 2006 production fell 1.47%. 2007 production fell 0.74%. 2008 production fell 2.25%. In other words every year under Bush production in the US fell, and most of those years were with a GOP controlled house and senate. Under Obama? 2009 production rose 8.29%, 2010 production rose 2.12%, 2011 production rose 3.62%. In fact Obama's 3 years in office have produced 3 of the top 4 increases in oil production per year, Reagan's 1984 increase of 2.2% ranks as the third highest production increase since 1980. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 9:14:54 AM |
No, worse, it came from a blog, that totally ignored what happened DURING presidencies and just took the numbers from beginning and the end. To get the real scoop, people should use that link an read the comments. The readers are smarter than the blogger at that site.
In may 2004 the average US gas price was 1.86 a gallon. By July 2008 the average gas price was 4.12 a gallon. When the world economy drove off a cliff in August/September 2008 gas prices plummeted to a low point of 1.61 cents a gallon by January 2009.
Also:
2002 Oil production fell 0.96%, 2003 production fell another 1.13%, 2004 Production fell another 4.61%, 2005 production fell another 4.44%. 2006 production fell 1.47%. 2007 production fell 0.74%. 2008 production fell 2.25%. In other words every year under Bush production in the US fell, and most of those years were with a GOP controlled house and senate. Under Obama? 2009 production rose 8.29%, 2010 production rose 2.12%, 2011 production rose 3.62%. In fact Obama's 3 years in office have produced 3 of the top 4 increases in oil production per year, Reagan's 1984 increase of 2.2% ranks as the third highest production increase since 1980.
Yes and obozo from his start has seen the largest increase in gas prices of any president EVER!
Make no mistake the people are sick of the lack of action from the obozo administration. He has also spent more money than any other president and we are in worse shape now than when he took office.
You post production increases and decreases under different presidents like it is them or the congress at the time that causes this.
WRONG it is supply and demand that controls the production. However the war obozo has against carbon based fuel has affected the price.
I live in on the gulf coast and know many rig workers that are sitting idle because of obozo.
The people are tried of his and the democratic parties socialist polices.
Here is another link that explains the increase has nothing to do with obozo.
http://news.investors.com/article/601827/201202211837/obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm
The fact is had obozo not restricted the drilling already going on the prices would not be where they are.
He wants the prices high where he can push his "green energy".
Spin all you want the fact is the American people are fed up with him the elections of 2010 and the recall elections this year show it as well as the polls.
One poll shows that people would prefer a convicted felon over obozo.
No president has ever been reelected with the approval rates obozo has. Time will tell once obozo is out however our country has more than enough reserves to last over 250 years.
We could cut our dependence on middle eastern oil right now if we didn't have obozo in office. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 10:22:56 AM | Hahahahaha!!! I get it now, you have no facts, just partisan drivel, emotional outbursts without an ounce of ideas. Even down to your idea the President is somehow responsible for oil prices.
"The fact is had obozo not restricted the drilling already going on the prices would not be where they are"
Right there, right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing. Drilling was restricted for 6 MONTHS, not 2 or 3 years. It was restricted to confirm there wouldn't be another Horizon like accidental spill. If you live as "you say" on the gulf coast, I'm sure you can understand that. First you would inspect the rigs already pumping, then the rigs drilling, and then the plans for future sites. To make sure they were be operated safely, or will be operated safely.
You also have no idea of how the law of supply and demand works! If you did, you wouldn't post such silly statements about what would happen post Obama. Do you really think demand from China and India will melt away with another president. Do you really believe, the multinational oil companies wouldn't pump crude out of the ground in our country and sell it somewhere else, for a better price?
Next I would tell about grades and types of oil, but you don't really want to hear it.
You are locked into partisan mindset and like most republicants, can never see facts for what they are. Even your sources are a joke, as I pointed out and another poster has pointed out. Even this:
"One poll shows that people would prfer a convicted felon over obozo"
is a joke. You have no idea what you are talking about. That was a primary race in West Virginia, designed for publicity to embarass the president. It was done by those residents of a state who have a problem since he is against the carbon emissions that coal produces. Aside from that, many states have a restriction against felons voting, so they would be not able to get on a ballot since they are not registered voters. Further in the charged atmosphere of todays politics, it would be a death sentence to even run someone like that.
But it plays nicely in "your world" of "Obama BAD, anything else good!" hahahahaha!
But getting back to the core issue of the thread. Since you obviously are privy to soooo much information, why don't you share with us, how this magic act will work? How will the mittster reduce the price of gasoline? Will he use his magic underwear to do it? hahahahahahaha!!!! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 10:46:07 AM | | like it or not Presidents get the blame for high gas prices...happened to Bush now Obama... The reason people hold obama more accountable is hus push for green energy all the time that's all you hear him talking about...most people are stuck withe cars they own now given the sorry state of the economy... drone on about electric cars and whatnot does the average joe no good...people stuck with tgese cars want to know that Obama is really trying to lower gas prices not worry solely about alternative fuels because this will not help them in the near future... | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 11:01:47 AM | Hahahahaha!!! I get it now, you have no facts, just partisan drivel, emotional outbursts without an ounce of ideas. Even down to your idea the President is somehow responsible for oil prices.
That would be your side that is without facts. The people are no longer enchanted by obozo. They has seen what he can do.........He has raised the unemployment numbers his shovel ready jobs by his own words "wern't so shovel ready."
So spin all you like the real world problems were ignored by obozo he had a agenda when he entered office and it had nothing to do with helping the American people.
His own people have said he wants higher energy costs so his green energy will be cost comparable to the energy we now use.
There is no doubt we need to explore other types of energy however the free market should decide when and what these are.
Not a socialist and his political party.
In the real world obozos experiments have failed. It is time to move away from this and get America back to work.
I mean when a Governor of a state like Wisconsin can do more in 18 months to make their economy better. While at the same time the president of the USA has had 3 years and has made it worse.
Well that says all that needs to be said. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 11:09:42 AM |
First why don't we look at who is benefitting from "are the gas prices killing you yet":
In 2011 profits from the oil industry's first quarter is as follows, Exxon $10.7 billion, up 69%, Shell $6.3 billion, up 30%,Conoco Phillips $3 billion, up 43%, BP $5.48 billion, down .05%(oil spill related), Chevron $5.2 billion. In case you think this a fluke let's review first quarter 2012.
In 2012 Exxon $9.4 billion, Shell $7.7 billion, Conoco-Phillips $2.9 billion, BP $5.92 billion, Chevron $6.5 billion.
Now color me crazy, but almost all have made tremendous profits on oil. WHICH when oil prices are high, causes higher gasoline prices in the end.
Right there, right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing
Those are all pretty anemic profit numbers, considering what they spent in revenue. These profit numbers are normal for any successful business. This is typical historic fact.
Sorry to burst this often cherry-picked bubble, but Exxon & most other oil companies only makes 9-12% profit on sales....much like Wal-mart, Piggly-Wiggly, Kinko's or any other business out there. The reason for the billions in profits is because they sell hundreds of billions worth of product, FAR more than most any other entity in the world.
Most of Exxon's earnings are from oil and natural gas, not from selling gasoline.
Exxon's profit margins are below-average compared with others that have triggered no outcry. Exxon's first-quarter profit margin was 9.4%, meaning...
~Exxon kept 9.4 cents of every $1 in revenue.
~Microsoft kept 27.3 cents of every $1 in revenue
~General Electric, 11.4 cents of every $1 in revenue
~McDonald's, 12.3 cents of every $1 in revenue .
In fact, Exxon is below the 11-cent average of Standard & Poor's 500 companies, says analyst Howard Silverblatt.
Sources: the companies, Standard & Poor's Capital IQ
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-04-27-xom_x.htm | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 11:22:07 AM | So then by your post, I'll take it you admit, you haven't a freakin clue, how another president would lower gas prices right? Hahahahahaha!! Facts indeed...and then again with the fairy tale through the woods:
"however the free market should decide when and what these are"
What constitutes a free market? Bought and paid for regulators, senators and congressmen, who would throw up roadblocks for new companies or noew technologies? You do know that lobbyists in DC, are plied with money by the oil companies to the tune of $100 million a year? That fits nicely with the poster previous to you, who mentioned how many gasoline fired engines, are out there and will be out there, unless the technology is pushed to reduce the cost, to make it available to a wider audience.
Reread your post and take the hate glasses off for a moment. It's just your typical rant from a tea party advocate, spoon fed by rush and the boys. You use all the usual catch phrases "not a socialist and his political party", "obozos experiments have failed" all the usual diatribe of a person scared by the republicans who uses the usual boogie man phrases.
"Governor of a state like Wisconsin can do more in 18 months"
Exactly what has he done? He basically banned unions, eliminated a bunch of police, firemen and teachers. So that's the answer? You know what you'll get with that? 20 years from now, we will have a stupid, uneducated person standing outside their house watching it burn while getting mugged!!! hahahahahahaha!!!
Gee, I wonder if YOU would be singing his praises if it were your job that got eliminated. Or your house that was burning or being robbed?
In this life you get what you pay for. You don't want to pay for anything, so you should be happy with nothing. But like all conservatives, you will hop on here and complain when little tommy can't read or do math. That all he is good for is menial labor, and he wants to live at home with you for the rest of his life...
edit to add: at #604, so your point is? While I get your point about slim profit margins, what is the problem? Many industries, due to competition are forced into a lower margin. That is the EXACT, model Walmart was founded on and bases it's business on. Selling shit for lowest possible price, versus what they pay for it, to drive out the competition in their space!
If you want to take it from that direction, OK, then gasoline should cost $10 a gallon, I'm sure the oil company will be happy to do that. Not sure it will make the other poster I have been arguing with happy.
Businesses rarely get to choose the margin at which they operate. You did me a favor by citing Microsoft and it's margin. They have a unique mix of products, lack the overhead a GE, GM or XOM has to deal with to get their product to market. Even then...as more companies have invaded their space, their margins have shrunk, and the newer technologies, have taken away market share.
The problem with the oil companies is there IS NO NEW TECHNOLOGY! They are doing the same thing they have done for over 100 years!
My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before..that was the point, not their profit margin. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 12:11:05 PM |
Businesses rarely get to choose the margin at which they operate.
I have built and ran two business' in my life and I darn sure chose the margin I operated at. I charged what the market allowed. Just like the oil companies do.
The problem with the oil companies is there IS NO NEW TECHNOLOGY! They are doing the same thing they have done for over 100 years!
There have been mechanics around for the same amount of time and they are doing the same thing they did 100 years ago too.
Should they be put out to pasture as well?
My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before..that was the point, not their profit margin.
All business' do that if they can increase their profits and keep the same selling price means they make more money.
Which is why they are in business. TO MAKE MONEY!
The lefties are just pissed off because their messiah has failed miserably!
Keep drinking the kool aid! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 12:37:00 PM | Gawd...how can you lie, not only to us but yourself? Read what you just wrote!!!
"I darn sure chose the margin I operated at"
That statement is a lie by the next thing you said. "I charged what the market allowed" You MAY have chosen to enter that business, you DIDN'T choose the margin, the market set that for you! Now while it was better without the competition of chain stores like Goodyear or Firestone, who could beat your margins on tires, the fact is when they opened up bays with mechanics in them, your margins were shot to shit! Same with a Jiffylube, gone were the $40 oil changes, replaced by the $19.95 specials they offered!
Then you lie again!!!
"There have been mechanics around for the same amount of time and they are doing the same thing they did 100 years ago too."
Are they? Are they really? So there were computers in engines 100 years ago? There was fuel injection 100 years ago? There were automated running racks to align and balance wheels 100 years ago? There was electronic ignition 100 years ago? I could go on why bother...those changes happened in just the last 30 years, can you imagine the size of the list if I tracked things back further, like automatic transmissions...
"Which is why they are in business. TO MAKE MONEY!"
Exactly, exactly my point so why will any oil company sell oil cheaply here if they can get more overseas? Because they are philanthropic? Hahahahahaha!!!
"The lefties are just pissed off because their messiah has failed miserably!"
See there you go, it's not about what's best for all of us, it's what you have been spoon fed. YOU want to make this and ALL politics about right and left...shit I could care less...I want whats best for me and my family, my friends, my town and everyone in this country. Not an agenda designed to benefit the few.
Shit even your closing phrase is hackneyed and borrowed from some glenn beck wannabe "drinking the kool aid"..
You haven't posted an original thought since you started, your facts are flawed, as are the mantra you wear like it were robes of gold! hahahahahaha!!! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 12:45:40 PM |
You haven't posted an original thought since you started, your facts are flawed, as are the mantra you wear like it were robes of gold! hahahahahaha!!!
Which is why it is best not to feed the trolls. | |
|
| |
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 1:01:30 PM | Oyvey...I appreciate your patience in trying to reason with the Fox Oil Trolls.
They scream "free market" but ignore the huge subsidies and the hidden subsidies of environmental destruction, human health consequences, and of course the millions of lives affected by the ongoing oil wars. Exxon, BP, and Shell don't have to shell out for these subsidies...we do. If full cost accounting was done for all the social, environmental, and financial subsidies we provide for that holy grail of cheap gas, solar, wind and other alternatives are already vastly cheaper. For all the focus on the Solyndra debacle, they totally ignore the elephant in the room of the nuclear debacle that will bankrupt us quickly as that fleet falls apart and we are left tending to the mess for hundreds of thousands of years of energy used for a generation or two.
Disturbing recent news that active duty suicides from our oil warriors is running one a day this year from repeated, long deployments and us being too cheap to get them help in a timely and effective manner. Ad this to the 6000 veterans a year committing suicide from previous resource wars, and those whining about gas prices are trivial in comparrison.
The dirty, "cheap" coal that we use today is leaving an environmental and social health cost that is killing communities and people. The coal fields and it's people are sacrificed so that there is "cheap" juice, most of it wasted with inefficiency and mindless consumption.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/06/institute-index-the-real-obscenity-of-mountaintop-removal.html
Minimum number of peer-reviewed scientific studies that have documented harmful human health effects from mountaintop removal mining: 21
Estimated number of people in whom mountaintop removal mining has caused cancer to date: 60,000
Percentage by which people living near mountaintop removal mining sites are more likely to die of cancer than those living elsewhere: 50
Percentage by which the rate of children born with birth defects in mountaintop removal mining areas exceeds that of other places: 42
The same thing is happening to people's health and communities in the boom-bust fracking areas. The human and environmental costs are bourne by the citizens there and generations to come as air pollution and water supplies are contaminated with impunity for generations to come. Subsidized "cheapness" that others pay for with their lives, cancers, destroyed infrastructure, collapses in home values, quality of life, etc. are already running into the hundreds of billions. Tar sands will prove to be even worse and even yet more subsidized by society at large to creat the illusion of cheapness.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-other-fracking-north-dakotas-oil-boom-brings-damage-along-with-prosperi
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_20181438
• It takes 6 million gallons of water plus 60,000 gallons of chemicals to frack one well of thousands.
• Exploding high pressure, hastily built, frack-gas pipelines are regularly killing people.
• Cornell University finds frack gas more environmentally damaging than coal.
• Fracking's toxins, carcinogens and radioactivity routinely escape or are released to the environment and are currently getting into our fresh water supplies.
• Injection wells dump fracking's polluted water into deep subterranean cavities, thus permanently remove billions of gallons of water from the hydrologic cycle. It simply rains that much less.
• New York City is declaring its source of drinking water off-limits to fracking.
• Denver has already experienced a 4-level earthquake from injection wells. Victims currently have no legal recourse. Same for Ohio and Arkansas.
• Fracking is a "shock, drill and run" operation typical of irresponsible behavior. All of the shale gas potential equals only a few years of national supply.
• "Remediation" is nearly impossible on a water table polluted with toxic nondegradables and long-lived radioactivity. Frackers may be dumping toxic waste on open ground. Who is monitoring this?
• Natural gas has twenty times the greenhouse impact of CO2. We need to know the relative climate change effect of fracking's methane releases.
• Fracking is not now "economic." Indeed, it incurs social costs in the billions.
• Pavillion, Wyoming residents are cautioned to ventilate their homes when bathing because the fracking related methane in their water could cause an explosion.
• Wells routinely experience failed cement casings and other losses of containments allowing routine pollutions by toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive fluids.
• Competent officials would require fracking fluid "tracers" and a "damage bond" — better yet, entirely cut off fracking's unconscionable amounts of water use, thus extensive pollutions.
• Gas and oil lobbyists have removed the Enviromental Protection Agency from any jurisdiction over fracking. Local officials have no authority over fracking, even within city limits.
The Rum One loves to believe that the BP spill and others have not affected the Gulf, failing to take into account that the only reason seafood from the Gulf is considered "safe" is because of political power and political detoxification that ignores science and the real human health costs and dangers.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695
BP apologists also ignore the devastation to the economies of the fishing and tourism industries as well as their multiplier industries damaged because roughnecks are in over their heads in drilling too deep, and when safety is sacrificed for profit for the few.
I did notice that after Obama mainstreamed the problem of oil speculators in his April speech, that the****oaches seemed to have settled back into their cracks a bit and the price came down around 60 cents a gallon since. Coincidence...perhaps. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 6:50:06 PM | Y'all might want to know the black helicopters are on there way!
Some of the BS people believe.
I guess all the people testing the seafood are in on this cover up?
Really y'all should lay off the kool aid. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 8:24:04 PM | "Y'all might want to know the black helicopters are on there way!"
That could be possible with a republicant at the helm, he might invoke the Patriot Act on us, guess you never heard o dat y'all!
"Some of the BS people believe"
I know, ain't it sumtin, been trying to get you to see the light for 2 pages now, and a half dozen more have tried for 4 pages!
"Really y'all should lay off the kool aid"
I guess you forgot to finish, so let me help ya. He should have finished with a flourish like "me im merican, i no's GW has my back, romney will as well, dems goood mericans not like yous commie pinkos, we-s da kin peoples dat saport da****y, na mtta wat"
Gawd help america! Well since we posted a wall of data, from many sources, and all had to come back with was 40 inarticulate words, so since I burned the post anyway, why not have some fun.
post #553 "Installing solar panels"
Well checking dealers in florida and given your square footage, I found a number of dealers at the 18-22,000 range not the $40,000 you quoted, much more, you din't include the rebates and tax credits.
Post #563 "Your assumption would be correct I am against throwing taxpayer money away"
So then, did you write your senator and congressman about the Zumwalt class destroyers being built, they cost $7 BILLION each and we are building 3, that's $2 BILLION more than an aircraft carrier, thanks shrub, way to go spending this guys dough!
Post # 573 "Facebook is a great example. A man started with minimal funds and the market made it into a money making business"
Now this one ya gotta luv! A more accurate slant on FB, would be a man started with an idea he stole from 2 brothers, got a bunch of money from goldman sucks and some ven cap guys, paid off the guys he stole it from, then screwed several of his partners to the benefit of the money guys, made a business, then cashed out on part of it, in the biggest screw job, wall street has done in the past 3 1/2 years. Then the last remaining partner fled america in order to avoid taxes on his windfall!
I'll save something from this same post until the end...
Post # 575 "No company should need government assistance"
So I guess here you must be alluding to the car companies or whatver...The car companies paid most of that back...how about the continuing annuities paid through subsidies to all the oil companies, the farm giants like Archer Daniels and others? That isn't a one shot like the car companies or solyndra, that is an annual bite out of our asses for more than $20 BILLION EVERY YEAR!!!!!!
"Yes I took the same education that is provided to everyone"
Guess it didn't do much good for ya huh?
I mean you luv the idea of what is going on in wisconsin, indiana and was tried in ohio. They want less teachers, in fact they want the unions busted out of the state so they can pay teachers shit! Now if you are a great teacher, I mean a top quality professional, would you stay in the state and work for mickyD wages? Or would you relocate to more progressive states that pay a living wage?
Post #582 "The unemployment rate went up under obozos watch"
Well...DUH! Like I told ya before, shrub crashed the economy 2 months before the election, which freakin way did you think unemployment would go? For the better part of a year companies were throwing people overboard to save money..why would the rate go anywhere but up?
Post #585 to a poster who argued "not that I couldn't just that a second grader knows better" so then I take from that...that's when you left school?
Finally my favorite of most of this "Bush was left with a surplus from a GOP controlled congress"
Oh so when it's a republican president congress did it, when it's a democrat the president did it..hahahahaha!!!
Oh gawd, for the second time tonight I think I will wet my pants..ahahahahaa!!
Back to #573 The quote from Jefferson.
"A wise and frugal government" You do realize this was written over 200 years ago? That it was written from the perspective of a man, trying to throw off the tyranny of an oppressive government, with worldwide demands, a huge navy, and constant war for the last 100 years. That the country was 1/6 the size it is today, that we had a minimal navy, no airforce and was comprised of mostly farmers.
"Shall restrain men from injuring one another"
Tell me, in todays society do you think the azzhats who ran the banks injured us? Do you think Madoff injured anybody? I could go on why bother...
"shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry"
yeah like I said that worked so well with the banks, the mortgage brokers, BP and the oil spill, the people who ran GM, Chrysler and Ford(the Pinto debacle), GE and the dumping of PCB's in the river, the fraking being done by small renagade gas explorers to people who now can light their water on fire right from the tap, to love canal, to food loaded with perservatives and hormones we don't know the effect of.
The point being left to their own pursuits, greedy ba*tards will screw, we the people, everytime...
"shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"
Funny, you don't seem to have a problem with that****scott walker taking the bread out of those workers mouths, when they had a legitimate contract with the state.
Yeah this was fun, even your defense of fox news as the "largest" gave me a giggle. You have of course heard of murdocks phone scandal...who knows what elese is out there. Beyond that, they do not even pretend to be balance when presenting a story.
You really need to get some better information, and start trying to see both sides of an issue. Stop parroting your pals Beck, Hannity and O'reilly...like professional wrestling, they are paid to put on a show...it's not for real..it's just for entertainment for those of you who like your opinions spoon fed to you. Who can find a boogie man to blame for the woes of this country. They not unlike you, complain...they never offer solutions to problems, just lament what goes on here...then they laugh all the way to the bank!! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 6:33:05 AM |
I guess all the people testing the seafood are in on this cover up?
Really y'all should lay off the kool aid.
" Some times people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." Nietzsche
A few decades ago I was under the illusion that the government would not lie to us, that the Clean Water Act meant clean water, and that the EPA and FDA would protect us. Yes, I was among many on Gullibles Travels back then. In the course of 3 decades of citizen activism ranging from pesticides, community air emissions, toxic landfills, incinerators, acidic rain and runoff, etc. it was quickly apparent that what illusions we have of protection are quickly shattered when just a little bit of scrutiny is applied. While there have been gains in consumer and environmental protections, those gains are tenuous at best and increasingly subject to politics and corporate influence.
The BP spill was the poster child of how the revolving door between industry, regulators, lobbyists, politicians, staff and the media work in concert to fight science and pollute public opinion. The same things go on in all business and energy sectors. This series of VEEN Diagrams illustrates the problem.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/17561617164/mapping-out-revolving-door-between-govt-big-business-venn-diagrams.shtml
Powerful business interests have prevailed in the Gulf Spill and ensuing poisoning of the aquatic ecosystem and people. It takes other scientists to take up the slack where the corruption prevailed in the EPA and FDA. Since the abstract I posted apparently goes over the head of a few, try it this way.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-overhyping-safety-gulf-seafood
Is Gulf seafood safe to eat in the wake of BP's massive oil spill last year? Absolutely, insists the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the safety of the food supply.
But a recent study from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) scientists casts serious doubt on that claim. A peer-reviewed article soon to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives (abstract here), concludes that the FDA's methods for gauging safety of Gulf seafood "significantly underestimate risk from seafood contaminants."
To assess risk of eating seafood that has been exposed to oil, the agency establishes a "level of concern"—the threshold above which contaminants pose unacceptable risks for seafood consumers—for a variety of oil-related substances. According to the NRDC team, the FDA is using outdated science to set those levels way too high—and as a result, the agency is promoting the consumption of seafood that in reality poses serious risk to consumers, particularly pregnant women and children.
Of particular concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which the authors call "known carcinogens and developmental toxicants." They develop in crude oil that has spent time in the ocean—and can accumulate in the flesh of fish. According to the NRDC team, the FDA is using "levels of concern" for these nasty substances that are hundreds of times higher than is justified by current science.
Here's how lead researcher Miriam Rotkin-Ellman summarized the research in a post on NRDC's blog:
FDA's "safe levels" were not safe for vulnerable populations because they allowed up to 10,000 times too much cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contamination in Gulf seafood.
How is the agency so grossly underestimating risk? Rotkin-Ellman points to no fewer than six "major flaws" in the FDA's process:
Assuming everyone weighs 80kg (176 lbs), underestimating how much seafood Gulf residents eat, ignoring the cancer risk from naphthalene contamination, failing to address the increased vulnerability of pregnant women and children, allowing for a high level of cancer risk, and assuming that the contamination will only last five years.
Rotkin-Ellman writes that the FDA's dodgy safety-screening process has led it to conclude that 123,000 micrograms per kilogram of shrimp of naphthalene, a particularly toxic PAH, is safe for everyone to eat. But according to her team's assessment, healthy, nonpregnant adults should be exposed to no more 46.99 micrograms per kilogram. For pregnant women and children who eat a lot of seafood, the threshold should be no higher than 5.91 micrograms per kilogram. If the agency used proper thresholds for these contaminants, more than 50 percent of Gulf shrimp samples would pose significant risks to pregnant women who are heavy seafood consumers.
When BP's monumental oil spill finally ended last year, a lot of powerful players had an incentive to declare to seafood supply safe: BP, to limit its obligation to compensate the area's fishing industry; the Obama administration, to put an end to an embarrassing crisis; and the Gulf fishing industry, to protect a multibillion-dollar market. But the FDA doesn't exist to answer to those interests; it exists to protect the public interest. If the NRDC team is right, the agency has failed to do so in the case of post-spill Gulf seafood.
If BP, frackers, nuke poopers, and tar sands industries were forced by law to pay the full environmental and human health costs of their ventures, they could not compete in the free market. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 9:26:14 AM |
My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before..that was the point, not their profit margin.
Right there, right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing.
Read this a million time until you understand WTF you posted:
My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before.
Then, read your other post(a million times if need be):
In 2011 profits from the oil industry's first quarter is as follows, Exxon $10.7 billion, up 69%, Shell $6.3 billion, up 30%,Conoco Phillips $3 billion, up 43%, BP $5.48 billion, down .05%(oil spill related), Chevron $5.2 billion. In case you think this a fluke let's review first quarter 2012.
In 2012 Exxon $9.4 billion, Shell $7.7 billion, Conoco-Phillips $2.9 billion, BP $5.92 billion, Chevron $6.5 billion.
LMAO!!!!! Your "stats" show they are making all making SLIGHTLY MORE, SLIGHTLY LESS, or ABOUT THE SAME $$ now than they did in 2011. All it shows is a fraction of a percentage point, or perhaps a full percentage point fluctuation in that boring yawn-inducing 9-12% profit margin. To quote the Cranberries..."in your head...in your head..zombie..."
It is all still within the normal everyday run-of-the-mill average 9-12% profit margin of any average business. 2011, 2012, 2006....doesnt matter. They make an average fluctuating profit of 9-12% of sales at about any given time period ....much like Walmart, Piggly-Wiggly,Kinko's or any other business out there. Heck...even Pepsi beats them with their 13.1% profit margin.
$11 billion profit is hard to fathom...especially when you ignore the fact that they are 10 times larger than most other mega-corporations & generate $100+ BILLION in revenue that creates that amount of profit, but its still less than a 10% return. . They're not doing anything different than any other business out there. They're just doing it on a much larger scale that you cannot fathom at all, obviously. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:57:09 AM |
Apple Profit Margin: 29.66%
Here is another company you can demonize. They are making over twice what the oil companies are making!
Evil evil people making money.
Last Year (2011) Apple reported revenues of $108.25 billion and a net profit of $25.92 billion.
Oil companies 11 billion apple 25.92 billion! Kinda puts it in context doesn't it!
The US consumed about 142 billion gallons of gas in 2011. The federal government collected $0.39 a gallon.
That is 55.38 billion the government made on gas from the taxpayers. For doing nothing!
Lets see how much of that money is paid to the oil companies in subsidies.
And the total amount of earnings not collected in taxes (which liberals define as a "subsidy") is about $4 billion per year.
So the government still gets 51.38 billion and now the oil companies profit is 15 billion.
And you liberals claim the oil companies are evil? Out of control big government is much more of a problem than the oil companies.
The federal government alone is making 3.67 times the money off oil as the oil companies do.
Now lets look at state tax there is a $0.11 average for taxes charged by the states.
That is 15.62 billion for the states taxes on average. Which means the states are making more than the oil companies also.
Now add this together and the government is making 67 billion a year compared to the 15 billion the oil companies make.
Yet these liberals want you to believe more government control will be better for us?
They want you to be mad at oil companies........when you should be mad at BIG GOVERNMENT!
Really you guys need to lay off your own kool aid as though you might be buying the load of bullcrap you are pushing the American people are not. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 11:25:34 AM | "right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing"
(sigh) I guess so...so why don't you school me? Why not show me the error of my ways! Explain the functioning of the oil industry to me, explain why that "boring yawn inducing 9-12% profit margin" is more important than , oil depletion allowances, or NYMEX speculators, or fixed or vairable costs in major businesses and the role they play by industry, or how they determine how much oil to bring to market at any given time?
Some of you seem to embrace percentages, rather than realities and economic cycles.
You do realize that oil futures were a sleepy little commodity until the early 80's. That moves were merely small throughout the 50's and 60's and were conducted by the vairous oil companies, refiners, various types of shippers for future use(railroads, airlines, steamships, etc.) Then with the advent of the 70's and their attendent oil embargos of 73 and 79, the bouncing ball of extreme price moves began. That goldman sucks, saw the trend and capitalized on it. That through the 80's they entirely reversed the ratio of 1 contract in 5 belonging to speculators to 5 contracts to 1 belonging to speculators.
Now while they never take delivery of a contract, or a long term position like the airlines or railroads to offset future moves in the market. They do tend to accelerate moves and increase volatility.
No industry can affect a general economic trend, for the most part, they cannot set their margins either, the market does that for them. Now unlike the corner store, where they can choose to carry a product or drop it if sales become slack, or fire a couple of employees, to offset less traffic, or any of the variables that a small nimble business can do. Large corporate entities like Exxon, or GM or GE, don't have that luxury. They have fixed overhead in brinks and mortor, labor and materials.
So when you keep harping about profit margins, you largely discount, the vageries of business and economic cycles. When GM, doesn't see a recession coming(because few of us do, as in 2008), they build too many cars, and are stuck with them affecting their margins. They cannot unbuild the cars, take back the labor costs, return the raw materials and say "hey, I didn't make as much, but I didn't lose it either"! So in bad years their profit margin shrinks if not evaporate altogether. In good years, when their projections are on the money, they get closer to the asking price of their cars and their margins rise.
How about Motorola or Nokia's margins? They were wonderful, back in the day, when cell phone models didn't change much...they would have a 18 month to 2 year shelf life. Then with rapidly changing technology, the phones were almost obsolete as they were being manufactured by new devolopments. So they would produce X number of phones, but sell only Y, because everyone wanted the next best thing.
YOU are the one trying to use a hard concept of what margin is normal or best, in an atmosphere of constant change in the market place.
Does Exxon make money when gas is $2 a gallon? I have no idea, and I imagine they don't, but they have other avenues open to them. Stop pumping out of more expensive wells(higher in costs to get the oil) and rely on older wells, that are less expensive, would be one way. Tax incentives, and taking unrealized profits from certain operations to offset losing ones is another.
BUT unlike all the other industries we discussed in this post, Exxon has one advantage the others don't. They can elect not to send an amount of oil to market(slow pumping) to increase the price, then exacerbated by the speculators. They can shut down either altogether( like sunoco and conoco did) or partially(saying it is upgrading or repairing the facilities) refinery operations, to narrow the supplies of gasoline, and boost it's price to distributors. Which translates to higher prices at the pump.
How about Apples profit margin, it's 36%, because it produces it's phones using slave labor(basically) in China and it's product line is unique and much sought after...well given that of Apple..let's talk margins on RIMM..when the blackberry was hot hot hot, in 2008 the margin was +51%..four short years later, after the Iphone came out it is now -2.9%!
Now FOR THE LAST TIME, my point was the amount of increase, in profits by oil companies, that were relevant to the price of gasoline at the pump.
But I'll sit back and let you school me, on HOW a company gets to set it's own profit margin, or even why it should be compared to a freakin company like piggly wiggly, who has ZERO pricing power, nor control of it's products they sell, since they are a reseller of products produced by other companies and priced by them as well.
edit to add: well I see the trolling hasn't abated...OK pal lets talk apple..
Clearly one of the best performing companies in America, had some interesting products, the MAC, but was being muscled out by HP, IBM, and smaller companies in the arena because of the different operating system. Brought back Steve Jobs, a genious at product design..invented many things or oversaw their development including the Ipod, Iphone, Ipad and Iwhateva.....
BUT lets get to the rat killin...Despite the fact they were designed, created and invented and blueprinted here in the good ol US of A. Jobs and Apple decided to outsource the manufacturing of these new items to China. Now you can look for independent confirmation, but they treat the workers in China like slave labor, working them a minimum of 12 hours a day to as long as 30 hours continuously.
Add to that since the product sells mainly in America, and you are so angry about the drillers who have no work...what about ALL THESE MANUFACTURING JOBS OUTSOURCED TO CHINA? They could have made a little less and made them here, but since they only care about profit and say "fuvk the USA, I want mo money" they sent them there!
How bout them apples? | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 11:43:37 AM |
Now FOR THE LAST TIME, my point was the amount of increase, in profits by oil companies, that were relevant to the price of gasoline at the pump.
Your point is moot as the government you want to control the oil companies make more than the companies themselves!
It would help the gas prices more to reduce the taxes collected and do away with the " subsidies" the government gives them in the form of paying them to collect these taxes.
The market sets the demand for gas and the amount of money the oil companies collect.....Not the oil companies.
Your point is not only moot it is not even real!
However the gas taxes are real and are the same no matter what the price is.
That is the truth but you can't handle the truth. | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 11:51:28 AM | Hey morbozo, those taxes...stop and think for just a minute...what do you think pays for highway repair..does the highway repair fairy come down and magically fix the road for free? Beyond which, since the republicans have not increased taxes during Obama's presidency, those taxes were in place for YEARS!!!!! The last rise in federal gas tax was in 1993...please stop the nonsense of not knowing what you are talking about.
Oh gawd....can you believe this, gotta be some serious internal issues....
"The market sets the demand for gas"
So then you lied before when you were cursing Obama and saying the republicants will give us pre-Obama prices. Is that right? Because if china and india and other developing nations will pay up, then the market will as well.
"That is the truth but you can't handle the truth."
Now in addition to the beck wannabe phrase of "kool aid" were going to invoke Jack Nicholson! Gotta luv it. I post facts and figure, you post rhetoric...who do you think they will believe? You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the tukis!!! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 12:05:35 PM | "The market sets the demand for gas"
So then you lied before when you were cursing Obama and saying the republicants will give us pre-Obama prices. Is that right? Because if china and india and other developing nations will pay up, then the market will as well.
This is exactly what I was waiting on!
If the drilling restrictions obozo put on the oil companies in his war against carbon fuels were lifted they could drill cheaper wells we could reduce if not eliminate the need for middle eastern oil.
The supply would go up and the price would go down.
You know just like it did when Bush did so and gas came back down to $1.84 a gallon.
Thanks for making my point for me!
Then you could leave the taxes alone and the revenues would increase because people will buy more gallons at that price.
I know the kool aid is good to you but the American people ain't buying it anymore!
The last rise in federal gas tax was in 1993.
Yes it was and a democratic president and congress gave us these taxes that allow the government to make more then the oil companies.
Yet it is you liberals that cry about the oil companies and high gas prices.
Again thanks for making my point!
I'll keep feeding you the rope you just keep wrapping it around the liberals necks! | |
|
| are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 12:24:24 PM |
It would help the gas prices more to reduce the taxes collected and do away with the " subsidies" the government gives them in the form of paying them to collect these taxes.
Isn't it rather embarrasing to say things that are demonstrably false in public?
The Federal gas tax has remained extactly the same for couple of decades, which is 18.4 cents. Whatever you heard from Fox News can be disputed by a few minutes with Google. States set ther own rates on top, often ranging from 18-50 cents. This rate is set whether the prices go up or not.
If the drilling restrictions obozo put on the oil companies in his war against carbon fuels were lifted they could drill cheaper wells we could reduce if not eliminate the need for middle eastern oil.
The supply would go up and the price would go down.
You know just like it did when Bush did so and gas came back down to $1.84 a gallon.
More Fox induced misinformation. Domestic drilling is now higher than the percentage of oil we export, and yet prices aren't coming down....because oil companies sell oil to the highest bidders. Did you think they were going to sell it here at home cheaper? Why would they, if the market is willing to pay more?
The reason prices came down at the end of Bush term was because of a little thing called market crash....you know, when the president you so defend begged the Democrats in congress to please help him bail out the banks?
| |
|
|
|
|
Page
24
of
27 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
|
|
Home
login 
