Yes Irish,
I want children and women to be roasted alive in a sweatshop.
Why would you accuse me of such nonsense? You know better than that.
HH
Headhunter,
If you’re so concerned about all this insane spending due to the war and the national debt, why don’t you write Bush a letter asking him to raise taxes, since it would be the responsible thing to do?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Headhunter,
If you’re so concerned about all this insane spending due to the war and the national debt, why don’t you write Bush a letter asking him to raise taxes, since it would be the responsible thing to do?[/quote]
Only a lib would think that raising taxes would solve things! LMAO!!
If you’re not a Green Party member, you’ve got to join. They’d love you, dude!! Go to their site and see how much you are alike.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wow, we had a surplus for a year! And how much did Clinton do, to rein in spending?
A lot of the current debt is being run up by war – a war that might have been nipped in the bud if Clinton had gone after terrorists, instead of ignoring them.
All of that is somewhat beside the point: The dems ran things pretty much for 40 years. Remember Reagan’s stumping for a line-item veto? And yes, he’s guilty of overspending as well.
We’re on the verge of bankruptcy and a national calamity, and Clinton had a surplus year. Wow!
Wonder why we don’t see as much about this stuff anymore? Alright, I enjoy a little conspiracy stuff now and then. :)[/quote]
A lot of the current debt is being run up by Bush and Cheney’ buddies profiteering off the backs of dead American children while simultaneously CUTTING taxes. Something no other president was dumb enough to do.
And please enlighten us as to how the Iraq War is Clinton’s fault.
Fucking moron.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Let’s see…you’re from San Francisco and twice you’ve come on T-Nation to express your ‘feelings’ for another guy (Neph). Might want to worry about yourself there, Mr. In-the-Closet.[/quote]
You’re actually comparing being gay to a mental illness?
That’s so wrong on so many levels I can’t even begin…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…just curious, what are the other 3 things you miss?[/quote]
Dutch Graduate students, stroopwaffels and fritesaus.
Seriously.
Dutch Graduate students – at least the four batches I had over there – were amazing. Smart, educated and extremely intelligent. I didn’t even have to make an effort to get things through to them, and their essays were just a pleasure to read. They even had an English level better than most my students over here, and I could make fun of their typical mistakes (like gluing the adjectives to the nouns) which was good, because Nederlands leeren was niet zo grappig…
Unfortunately most Dutch people are very closed and depressed – I can’t blame them, considering how much of an effect that horrible weather had on us too – so it was very hard for us to make Dutch friends, and two of the ones we did committed suicide (seriously).
I can get stroopwaffels now at my local supermarket, but they’re not the same.
I can’t get real Dutch fritesaus anywhere over here. 
[quote]
LOL! You think that spending more than you earn is rational?!
You call me a half-wit. Apparently quality is more important than quantity. [/quote]
H2, you are a half wit. Where have I ever said spending more than you earn is a good idea?
Maybe you should start LISTENING a little more and talking a little less?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Let’s see…you’re from San Francisco and twice you’ve come on T-Nation to express your ‘feelings’ for another guy (Neph). Might want to worry about yourself there, Mr. In-the-Closet.
You’re actually comparing being gay to a mental illness?
That’s so wrong on so many levels I can’t even begin…
[/quote]
Didn’t hear a denial. Also, aren’t you some sort of half-assed economist? That makes you qualified to judge others’ mental state, based on an internet forum? You, sir, are one fucked up gay dude.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yes Irish,
I want children and women to be roasted alive in a sweatshop.
Why would you accuse me of such nonsense? You know better than that.
HH
But I thought government regulation of anything was bad, especially business practices…
What you advocate leads to a time of de-regulation, which leads to this. You cannot trust bosses to give a shit about people; there are reasons for the laws we have now.[/quote]
And you think government regulation is the answer?
Since you don’t insult when you post, I respect that, btw.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yes Irish,
I want children and women to be roasted alive in a sweatshop.
Why would you accuse me of such nonsense? You know better than that.
HH
But I thought government regulation of anything was bad, especially business practices…
What you advocate leads to a time of de-regulation, which leads to this. You cannot trust bosses to give a shit about people; there are reasons for the laws we have now.
And you think government regulation is the answer?
Since you don’t insult when you post, I respect that, btw.[/quote]
it’s pretty much either government regulation or union based enforcement.
what’s it gonna be?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wow, we had a surplus for a year! And how much did Clinton do, to rein in spending?
A lot of the current debt is being run up by war – a war that might have been nipped in the bud if Clinton had gone after terrorists, instead of ignoring them.
All of that is somewhat beside the point: The dems ran things pretty much for 40 years. Remember Reagan’s stumping for a line-item veto? And yes, he’s guilty of overspending as well.
We’re on the verge of bankruptcy and a national calamity, and Clinton had a surplus year. Wow!
Wonder why we don’t see as much about this stuff anymore? Alright, I enjoy a little conspiracy stuff now and then. 
A lot of the current debt is being run up by Bush and Cheney’ buddies profiteering off the backs of dead American children while simultaneously CUTTING taxes. Something no other president was dumb enough to do.
And please enlighten us as to how the Iraq War is Clinton’s fault.
Fucking moron.
[/quote]
Harris,
Get a clue: Insulting me doesn’t work. It simply makes you look like the low-life that you are.
You honestly believe that young men are dying so Bush and Cheney’s buddies can make money… that this was done for oil or profit? Is this in the same league with Jews introducing AIDS into the black community, or Bush deliberately destroying the NO levees?
You are simply evil. That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. You are an evil thing. I was about to say ‘man’ but its not possible that someone who uses such vile language, who has such pure hate in his heart, qualifies as a man. You are just an evil thing.
Goodbye.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL! You think that spending more than you earn is rational?!
You call me a half-wit. Apparently quality is more important than quantity.
H2, you are a half wit. Where have I ever said spending more than you earn is a good idea?
Maybe you should start LISTENING a little more and talking a little less?[/quote]
That’s all you’ve said. You’re all for spending w/o end. You say this shit over and over, deny same, and then accept your denial as proof.
No wonder Rainjack hated your guts.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wow, we had a surplus for a year! And how much did Clinton do, to rein in spending?
A lot of the current debt is being run up by war – a war that might have been nipped in the bud if Clinton had gone after terrorists, instead of ignoring them.
All of that is somewhat beside the point: The dems ran things pretty much for 40 years. Remember Reagan’s stumping for a line-item veto? And yes, he’s guilty of overspending as well.
We’re on the verge of bankruptcy and a national calamity, and Clinton had a surplus year. Wow!
Wonder why we don’t see as much about this stuff anymore? Alright, I enjoy a little conspiracy stuff now and then.
A lot of the current debt is being run up by Bush and Cheney’ buddies profiteering off the backs of dead American children while simultaneously CUTTING taxes. Something no other president was dumb enough to do.
And please enlighten us as to how the Iraq War is Clinton’s fault.
Fucking moron.
Harris,
Get a clue: Insulting me doesn’t work. It simply makes you look like the low-life that you are.
You honestly believe that young men are dying so Bush and Cheney’s buddies can make money… that this was done for oil or profit? Is this in the same league with Jews introducing AIDS into the black community, or Bush deliberately destroying the NO levees?
You are simply evil. That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. You are an evil thing. I was about to say ‘man’ but its not possible that someone who uses such vile language, who has such pure hate in his heart, qualifies as a man. You are just an evil thing.
Goodbye.
[/quote]
Why not try and be a man yourself by addressing his points one by one, ignoring his petty insults (they ARE petty), and admitting when you’re wrong (and you HAVE been), instead of simply calling your opponent “evil”? Your behavior hasn’t been stellar, and you’ve failed to make a strong case for what you advocate. You gripe about spending and simultaneously blindly follow Bush in your support of the war and all bush’s policies.
This is only an example of your hypocrisy, there is more evidence of it, but I suspect that I don’t need to mention it to get through to you. Take a look in the mirror, dude. I think you need a little perspective on your own life and self before you spout any further advice on the course our nation should take.
I ask that you take this for what it truly is - friendly advice, not an insult.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That’s all you’ve said. You’re all for spending w/o end. You say this shit over and over, deny same, and then accept your denial as proof.
No wonder Rainjack hated your guts.
[/quote]
H2, the fact I am not a halfwit Rand disciple, such that I am not for something damned near to anarchy will of course have me agreeing to the need for more government than yourself.
If that is all you can fathom, then perhaps that excuses you making up such stupid claims, over and over, and acting as if you have actually heard anything anyone has said.
I’m not all for spending without end.
Anyhow, as far as I’m aware, I’m not participating here to win any popularity contests. If Rainjack decides to hate me, I trust he has come up with better reasons than those you suggest.
Personally, I think he is alright, but I have to admit I don’t always enjoy sparring with him.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wow, we had a surplus for a year! And how much did Clinton do, to rein in spending?
A lot of the current debt is being run up by war – a war that might have been nipped in the bud if Clinton had gone after terrorists, instead of ignoring them.
All of that is somewhat beside the point: The dems ran things pretty much for 40 years. Remember Reagan’s stumping for a line-item veto? And yes, he’s guilty of overspending as well.
We’re on the verge of bankruptcy and a national calamity, and Clinton had a surplus year. Wow!
Wonder why we don’t see as much about this stuff anymore? Alright, I enjoy a little conspiracy stuff now and then.
A lot of the current debt is being run up by Bush and Cheney’ buddies profiteering off the backs of dead American children while simultaneously CUTTING taxes. Something no other president was dumb enough to do.
And please enlighten us as to how the Iraq War is Clinton’s fault.
Fucking moron.
Harris,
Get a clue: Insulting me doesn’t work. It simply makes you look like the low-life that you are.
You honestly believe that young men are dying so Bush and Cheney’s buddies can make money… that this was done for oil or profit? Is this in the same league with Jews introducing AIDS into the black community, or Bush deliberately destroying the NO levees?
You are simply evil. That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. You are an evil thing. I was about to say ‘man’ but its not possible that someone who uses such vile language, who has such pure hate in his heart, qualifies as a man. You are just an evil thing.
Goodbye.
[/quote]
You not liking me means I’m doing something right.
But,of course–and as usual–you have no point to make other than “Ooh, my virgin ears! You beast, you!”
Halliburton–Dick’s former and future employers–is making billions off this debacle.
The oil companies–where did Dubya used to work again?–are making record profits by gouging Americans while claiming that instability in the Middle East (which we started) is the reason. Or taxes. Or the lack of refineries. Or Santa.
Meanwhile, 2500 kids–fucking CHILDREN–are dead.
Tke your ‘evil’ bullshit and shove it up your ass. I will continue to point out the obvious fact that you’re a loon every fucking chance I get.
Fuckfuckfuck, you cunt-faced asswich.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Okay, everyone…say it together: 8 years ago, we had a SURPLUS. And who was President?
A dirty, insane liberal.
Fucking moron.
[/quote]
Wasn’t that a [b]projected[/b] surplus that never materialized?
Kinda like the 100,000 cops thingy
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Okay, everyone…say it together: 8 years ago, we had a SURPLUS. And who was President?
A dirty, insane liberal.
Fucking moron.
Wasn’t that a [b]projected[/b] surplus that never materialized?
Kinda like the 100,000 cops thingy[/quote]
I thought it actually DID happen, but didn’t happen again because the economy wasn’t as strong the next year… if you have evidince to the contrary, please, link me.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Okay, everyone…say it together: 8 years ago, we had a SURPLUS. And who was President?
A dirty, insane liberal.
Fucking moron.
Wasn’t that a [b]projected[/b] surplus that never materialized?
Kinda like the 100,000 cops thingy
I thought it actually DID happen, but didn’t happen again because the economy wasn’t as strong the next year… if you have evidince to the contrary, please, link me.[/quote]
I always forget the accounting trick they used but the deficit was still growing every day even with the alleged surplus. Perhaps they were not counting payment on the national debt.
Since Clinton and the Republican Congress both tried to claim credit for the fictional surplus neither party was going to make waves.
Of course our media was totally irresponsible for actually going along with the fiction of the “surplus”.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Thought I’d throw this out there-
in 1980, the average CEO made 42x the average worker.
In 2000, the average CEO makes 500x the average worker.
And even though the Fat Bastard who ran ExxonMobil got a 400 million dollar severage package, we’re still paying around $3 a gallon. That’s not gouging? 80 billion in profits for the quarter, but we’re paying prices this high?
It is all bullshit. I’ve been buying gas anywhere but ExxonMobil now. Fuck them [/quote]
Obviously I stole this:
Their highest quarterly profit has been about $9.9 billon.
Sure, a $9.9B quarterly profit is huge, but you need to look at a few dimensions of this industry. Currently, world consuption is equivalent to 230M barrels of oil every day from all energy sources, and at current prices the yearly cost for all that petroleum is $2.5T (larger than the U.S. annual budget). If you really dig into the numbers, you’ll also see that today’s prices are still less than the prices that came from government controls in the 1980’s. Also, the industy earnings are in line with other industries in terms of earnings per dollar of revenue (a key figure). Over the past decade, ExxonMobil’s overall capital and exploration expenditures have exceeded overall earnings. This is a very important point because Energy Secretary Sam Bodman is calling for oil firms to boost capacity. To boost this capacity, they have to make capital expenditures that are not possible without profits. This so-called windfall tax that many on Capitol Hill are calling for would only hinder the progress they want in refining capacity, so maybe they should consider what they actually want.
http://americandaily.com/article/13258
Because of its recent record-high quarterly profits, ExxonMobil has been the maximum-visibility target for angry consumers of all political persuasions. But those record profits, by themselves, do not prove gasoline price gouging.
-
Most of ExxonMobil’s profits are made from international oil and gas ventures, not from gasoline sales in the United States. Those profits accrue from consistent investments of billions of dollars over many decades, in places like Chad and offshore Angola.
-
A significant part of ExxonMobil’s profit increases have resulted from year-by-year increases in operating efficiency. Worldwide sales increased 72% from 2001 to 2005, while the total number of worldwide employees dropped from 98,000 to 84,000. Additionally, ExxonMobil has the industry’s largest and most highly integrated refineries, which has made it more efficient than most other major oil companies.
-
Oil companies like ExxonMobil exhibit what is called operating leverage. A high portion of their operating costs is fixed; that is, those costs do not change much if at all when sales rise or fall.
Pumping more oil and gas from existing wells and processing petroleum in refineries doesn’t require hiring more employees or running additional shifts, in contrast to manufacturing in the automobile industry. Oil company operations run 24/7 with no shutdowns, except for periodic maintenance. Refineries, wells, and pipelines are closed systems through which oil, natural gas, and refined products flow, with relatively little human intervention. Because of their enormous capital investment and fixed operating costs, refineries are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices, their profits bobbing up and down. Many major oil companies, as a result, have sold their refining operations.
Operating leverage means that changes in sales volumes disproportionately affect net income. When world oil prices rise, sales volumes go up more than operating costs, and a large portion of the price-driven volume increases flow to the bottom line net income. Operating leverage also means that when oil prices fall, operating costs don’t decline much, and net profits drop more than proportionally.
In 2003 when oil prices increased 78%, ExxonMobil’s net income as a percentage of sales jumped 59%. But in 1999, when oil prices dropped 8%, ExxonMobil’s net income to sales percentage declined 19%. Oil prices have declined in three of the past ten years. But ExxonMobil’s net income percentage dropped, as much as 87%, in five of those ten years.
Angry consumers look only at ExxonMobil’s profits in recent quarters and are unaware that, over long time spans, the company is as much vulnerable to low oil prices as it is the beneficiary of current high prices.
Over the past decade, ExxonMobil’s net income as a percentage of sales has averaged a relatively modest 7.3%, with the high point in 2005 at 10%. This pales in comparison to the operating leverage of Microsoft, where software development costs are analogous to oil companies’ fixed costs, and duplicating and distribution costs are a small fraction of sales prices. Microsoft’s net income to sales has not been less than 25% in the past decade and has gone as high as 41%.
- 68% of ExxonMobil’s net income over the past five years has been plowed back into finding and developing new energy sources, which is part of a continuing effort that has been markedly effective over many decades. Liberals in Congress, however, wish to supplant management’s authority and require that capital funds be diverted to a repeat of the 1970s Federal synfuels fiasco.
Apparently inescapably, liberals suffer the socialistic state- planning delusion that they merely have to conceive an idea and pass a law to make it reality. In the words of a CNNMoney.com article, “Jimmy Carter’s synfuel project flopped in the 1970s. In the 1980s the government poured billions into the black hole of fusion. In the 1990s solar energy amounted to little more than an expensive toy for tree huggers.”
Windfall taxes or price controls will reduce the amount of funds available for finding new sources of energy, thereby curtailing future supplies of oil and guaranteeing higher gasoline prices here. Finding new energy sources has become hugely expensive as off shore drilling operations have moved from 600 foot depths fifteen years ago to as much as 7,500 feet under water today. Future production from difficult sources like tar sands will require much larger investments than past drilling ventures.