So the GOP controlled House passed a budget to fund the rest of the fiscal year.
With the promise to "cut the deficit" they cut $61 billion from the budget, while sheltering coal and oil companies.
Among their cuts were schools and heating and housing subsidies for the poor. Yet tax cuts for oil companies (the most profitable companies in the history of earth) get continued tax cuts.
Among their cuts were blocking the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, shield greenhouse-gas polluters, and barring the government from preventing mountain top removal. Among the cuts was barring all money for Planned Parenthood, slashing the EPA by a third, while increasing the Pentagon budget by 2%.
Is this really about cutting the deficit? Or is it nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth from constituents that give money to Democrats to constituents that give money to Republicans?
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 10:16:21 AM
it'll play directly into Obama's hands, just like it did when they did the same thing to Clinton in '95.
"Those who forget the past are forever condemned to repeat it."-------George Santayana.
Imbeciles.
I'm guessing you don't read many income statements, balance sheets, 10K filings. I believe Exxon Mobile had revenues of $383B and earnings of $30B in 2010. What is that, about 9% of revenue? But then Apple had revenue of $65B, and earnings of $18B. Now which company is more profitable, and has been more profitable for many years? Do you want more examples?
in life, treasure and the respect of the world, to have gone to war in Iraq?
and accounting procedures play a major role in that.
But, if we are talking about which US companies made the most reported profits, as opposed to which had the highest margins, only two oil companies made Fortune's top twenty list for 2009.
Sadly, Bank of America was not one of them. And profitablilty is not the same thing as return on equity, which is the only measure I care about.
WW's own link even states that only "oil refineries" are getting any type of "special" treatment.
BTW if oil refining is such a lucrative business, why haven't we built a single new refinery in this country in over thirty five years?
Personally, I wouldn't accept an oil refinery if you gave me one. Besides the razor thin margins,the environmental and liability issues would (and have) scared any one with any sense from getting ino that particular end of the business. The fact remains however, this country needs more refining capacity, or we will soon be importing not just crude oil, but refined products as well. Even a moron like WW should be able to figure out that that would be a very bad thing for this country.
"BTW if oil refining is such a lucrative business, why haven't we built a single new refinery in this country in over thirty five years?"
Maybe it's because oil companies just add to existing refineries?
"Personally, I wouldn't accept an oil refinery if you gave me one. Besides the razor thin margins,the environmental and liability issues would (and have) scared any one with any sense from getting ino that particular end of the business."
And it also scares people when you give them the land for free, and exempt them from any environmental or liabilities issues. Now I know I'm not in your field GaG, but isn't this much more about limiting supply to artificially prop up prices?
The GOP budget calls for keeping the tax subsidies in place for oil companies (I thought you guys were for free markets and against welfare?), but it takes away nutritional aid programs for babies born underweight.
Okay...I'm going to establish a rule here. You cannot call yourself "pro-life" if you want to take food out of the mouths of malnourished babies.
with respect to those Midwest refiners with complex refining capabilities like Frontier Oil.
Unlike many refiners, FTO has the flexibility to change from sweet, sour, heavy or high acid crude- whichever has the best margin at any given times. They have delayed cokers, unlike most US refiners, which allows them to convert heavy crude to premium stuff. Plus FTO’s Midwest refineries give it access to the main hub at Cushing Oklahoma and pipeline access to Canadian oil sands.
And best of all, a lot of people don’t realize the North American oil market is undergoing a major change as the Canadian fields come on line and increase production. You are starting to see that now with West Texas crude selling at a discount to Brent.
FTO is bound to benefit with higher margins, as it has the ability to run on WTI- crude, at a much lower cost.
Or so I convinced myself last fall when I bought a couple thousand shares of FTO. Of course, the SOBS cut the dividend and lost money last year, so I have not been happy yet, but I do think I’m ahead of the curve for once on this one.
If that ever happens, let us know as the XLE would triple overnight.
I think you are a little confused here. Integrated oil companies and refiners face staggering environmental regulation, and civil and criminal liabilities. While it is true they are excluded from CERCLA, there are oil specific statutes just as draconian.
Have you forgotten BP so soon?
If you did buy back FTO back in the fall of 2010, then you have had a nice run. Sounds like you've been a rather good student in reading both the annual report and analysts reviews. FTO is a better play than Valero and Tesoro. Maybe it's because FTO doesn't operate a retail division. Nevertheless, I wouldn't invest in refiners. Stay with the integrators, or just add to your XLE position.
UAW, Teamster's, (they gave much of my union dues to dems), etc. It works both ways.
Why don't we take that money, transfer it to Planned Parenthood, ensure we have improved oversight and governance, add some key metrics so we can effectively measure the number of abortions performed, and girls/women placed on birth control, thereby ensuring an eventual decrease in the number of future malnourished babies.
What do you think? That's a helluva an initial value statement.
I can't even believe I'm writing this shit.
my basis but the company still does not have a trailing 12 month PE, there is no talk of a dividend, and I had to break my vow of never buying a company that wasn't making money.
And virtually any energy company has gone way up during the same period - both the XLE and the OIH are near 52 week highs. I wish I owned the OIH but it is too high to get in now and same goes with adding to XLE.
But FTO reports earnings next week and already options activity is negative and the price is sinking instead of rising ahead of earnings. So I'm not happy right now. If the earnings report is a miss, I could lose probably 4% of my gains very quickly.
And Warren Buffet dumped all of his Bank of America stock last week so that is not a good sign either.
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 1:53:58 PM
sucks. There I said it. You know the old saying, "buy on the rumor, and sell on the news?" Guess what, get ready for some news next week. You made $20K. Are you afraid of the capital gains and resulting tax bill?
Take your profits, and don't freak out if FTO goes up after their earnings announcement. I don't think you play the options game, so just sell and book the profit.
P.S. This market has gone straight up for 6 months. There is going to be a correction. You can buy some FTO later.
I hope you're right, P, but I'm not so sure. The political landscape has changed since then and many more people simply hate the government and could give a rat's ass if it gets shut down. At least until they lose some gov. service they like!
At least I'm being honest. Enough of the so-called experts are saying anywhere from 5 to 10%. I thought it was going to happen when Egypt blew up, but obviously the market looked past that event, as well as the other shit going on in the Middle East.
I tend to look at technicals, i.e. S&P Oscillator, and everything is pointing to an overbought market. I took some off the table back when the S&P hit the 1325 mark, but I'm not kicking myself because the S&P is at 1343. I'm greedy, just not that greedy.
FTO is up bc the sector is up, not bc of any of the reasons that led me to buy it as a best in class refiner.
Again, the key is the Canadian oil fields coming on line and increasing production. That has not happened yet. The discounting of WTI caught me by surprise but that turned out to be an added plus for my investment.
If we get a beat on the 24th and maybe some good news like a coup in Saudi Arabia, FTO could make a big jump.
Coal and Oil lobbyists donate to campaigns.
Self-Interest at work. Sad, but true.
I believe FTO reports after the close on Thursday. FTO closed on yesterday @ $28.12. You do know that a premium is already built into this stock based on the forward P/E.
Wow...St. John's beat Pitt today. St. John's crushed UConn. St. John's SPANKED Duke. And UCLA beat???????? See you in March.
I'm done for the night.
Republicans don't like government anyway. Shut it down for couple of weeks, just may be they will get an idea why government is needed. I am not holding my breadth though.
Who would come up with such dumb idea when the country is just coming out of the biggest recession. When the economy grows, revenue grows and reduce borrowing.
It is too much to expect rational thinking from people who are stuck in the 17th century. Who the ell needs mountains anyway, blow the top of all mountains, strip mine every inch of the United States, suck every drop of fossil fuel, if sucking is profitable, give them tax payer money to make it profitable. When US becomes a desert, they will have to stop.
How can you argue?
Obama is going to veto and there is precedence, Clinton did it and won.
when this country looks like a third rate pile of trash....this guy is leading us to destruction....applauds and bows to enemies, encourages overthrow of our friends......financial ruin 'cause he just had to spend the entire world's money and got nothing in return....first to go down is wisconsin..what a disgrace!
Walker's plan calls for nearly all state, local and school employees to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care premiums. That would save $30 million by June 30 and $300 million over the next two years, the governor has said.
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 2:27:36 PM
But, if we are talking about which US companies made the most reported profits, as opposed to which had the highest margins, only two oil companies made Fortune's top twenty list for 2009.
Sadly, Bank of America was not one of them. And profitablilty is not the same thing as return on equity, which is the only measure I care about.
Quote :
With the company set to launch the iPhone on Verizon , the largest and most popular carrier in the US, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster sees Apple's share price hitting $438 by year's end.
That price level could allow it to surpass Exxon Mobil's $375 billion valuation to become the world's most profitable company, though rising oil prices could boost Exxon Mobil's value even higher.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/hardware/apple-valuation-tops-300-bn-may-surpass-exxon-mobil/articleshow/7218224.cms
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 4:06:27 PM
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 5:43:57 PM
more efficient at dispensing birth control? Thats a great solution!
How much of a correction?
Paying someone's heating bill does not create Jobs....
Those things you hate, CORPORATIONS, CREATE JOBS!!! OBAMA and the Dems are not smart enough to realize this which is why we are hanging around 10% unemployment.
Let me give you a little ECON 101. COMPANIES DO NOT PAY TAXES!! They factor them into the cost of goods sold and increase the price to the end consumer (i.e. your beloved middle class) who get hit with it.
Go ahead, raise the TAX and oil companies, I just wonder if you will be smart enough to figure out why your heating bill has gone up. Gee, raise those taxes enough and the prices may get so high you will need a government program to help people pay their heating bill!! HMMM....
-- Modified on 2/20/2011 5:20:52 AM
The problem is the economic practices of the capitalist class not the hiring practices of corporations. Everyone pays taxes but only the capitalist class profits from taxes. So Snow it's not really about jobs is it? It is about profits and wealth for the capitalist class at the taxpayers expense.
Short form:
Do you object to PROVIDERS? We providers are capitalists.
Long form, part one:
We have a service you like to use. We charge a rate for that service that you like to use. You accept and pay our rate in order to use our services. If you don't like one rate, you look for a rate you like better. If you don't like one provider regardless of rate, you look for a provider you like. All in all, if you didn't like our service, you wouldn't use our services regardless of rate.
Long form, part two:
We make a gross profit from giving our great service that you like to use. Then, after subtracting expenses (rooms, supplies, etc.), we pay taxes on what's left (net profit). We pay taxes as a business. We pay taxes personally. Yes, it's about profit (and fun, in this case; who says we can't have both?). But, it's capitalism at its finest.
Now, do you object to PROVIDERS? We're capitalists with a capital C.
The only people who benefit from taxes is the political class!! They use our money as a power tool.
Really Charlie, you didn't know that??? Do you still live with your mom or something?
define what I refer to as the capitalist class. I have but one definition and it is quite simple. The capitalist class has the ability to set the value of all currency. Jo you might be able to set the price of a session with you but you have no say in what your money is worth. The capitalist can say what his money is worth. They do this by controlling markets. You would need to control all of the providers on the planet in order to have a say as to what a $1 is worth. Jo you and I are business operators not capitalists.
If you need a definition do a search on my ter posts. I use the term a lot...LOL
we're actually talking about.
This is what I think of when I talk of capitalism:
"An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
This is coupled with:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights."
Capitalism, then, is this in the above: I have something you want and you have something I want. We trade at a rate that makes us both happy. No one is twisting our arms (or any other body part) to accept something else. We determine, by our actions, what that dollar means to us.
To me, your definition is definitely NOT capitalism.
Dont worry though plenty of people would define capitalism the way you did. The net effect of your concept of capitalism is the same as my simple definition. The capitalist class is comprised of those who
control the value of the Earth's money supply.
BTW what do you think is wrong with my definition?
the value of the EARTH'S money supply. Not even the U.S.A., although I'll admit that our country tries to make what it touches valuable only in accordance with the current value of the American dollar. I'll grant you that. And so does every other country; I'll grant you that too. (The Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.)
However, your definition denies that the individual has rights including determining the value of the dollar between OURSELVES. What we do, every day of our lives when we buy something - or put a price on it if we're the ones who own the business - is tell everyone else that "Yes, I think this item is worth this price." It doesn't matter whether the item bought is a piece of penny candy, or a Picasso worth $18,000,000. We who buy and sell determine the values of the dollars spent / set.
Not some murky "capitalist class." We may be small potatoes compared to big corporations, and we may be overlooked by those same big corporations, but even small potatoes have value to those who want to make a good stew.
(St. Croix is probably laughing at both of us right now as we try to hammer this out. I admit that I'm an infant when it comes to money matters. But, what I do understand, I understand well enough to get me through the day. My understanding is a small one inside a larger one; from day-to-day, the smaller one is usually enough.)
I think you're looking at a much bigger picture than I ever will.
Quite simply, I look at how things affect me in my daily life. Since I break "rules" right and left anyway (beginning with being a provider because the laws against it make no moral sense to me), what our government does often doesn't affect me. Same with corporations. Not really. If either tells me I can't sell something, then I'll barter for it. If either tells me that the value of the dollar is $0.65, then I'll find a buyer who'll give me $0.79 for it. Either way, I keep getting MY value of that dollar I've received or spent.
lets say suddenly the $100.00 dollars that you have today will only buy $50.00 worth of goods next week.
Are you going to increase your prices by $50.00? Who will be able to deal with a 50% price increase in such a short time frame? The capitalist class causes this to happen. Its bad here but when that happened to food prices in Egypt , people demanded change.
The socalled Capitalist Class can greatly influence prices, but only in a government controlled "worker utopia" like the ones you constantly are singing the praises of, like Venezuela and Cube, only in such places are prices actually "fixed",
Try buying a shirt or a TV in one of your "workers paradises" like Venezuela. The prices are through the roof, I don't need a news report to know this, I have seen it first hand, and recently BTW