The Real Reason Gas Prices Are Soaring

[ctrlraven]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/the-real-reason-gas-prices-are-soaring/19893347




Have you ever wondered why when you go to the gas station to fill up the family car, the price of gas at the pump has just jumped 25 cents a gallon over the past three days? Perhaps you thought the oil companies were just being greedy. Or you believed the nightly news pundit who said that gas prices went up because the crisis in Libya was affecting supplies of oil. One professional oil trader says that you'd be wrong on both counts.

Dan Dicker, who has spent nearly three decades in the oil market, has a profoundly disturbing explanation of why the price of oil, and the gasoline that comes from the crude product, has risen so dramatically in recent months. It turns out, Dicker says, that the price has nothing to do with supply and demand for oil. It's the financial market for oil, filled with both professional speculators and amateur investors betting on poorly understood oil exchange-traded funds, who have ratcheted up the price of gas to such sky high levels.

"There is no supply issue going on here - what you have is the perception of the possibility of a supply issue," Dicker says. "A whole bunch of people are pouring money into an oil market trying to take advantage of what they perceive to be a real risk in supply. It's a marketplace that I argue should not be allowed to be wagered on like a stock or bond."

Dicker notes that Libya produces only 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, just a tiny fraction of the world oil market. Even if Libyan crude were lost to the world market in the current turmoil, and there is no sign that it is, Saudi Arabia has 5 million barrels a day to use in case of an emergency.

Dicker, who has just published a book called Oil's Endless Bid: Taming The Price of Oil To Secure Our Economy, makes a strong case that if the government stepped in and regulated oil trading so that only investors with a genuine interest in the physical product, such as airlines and heating oil companies, could buy and sell oil futures, then the price of oil would fall by 50% overnight and our economy would be much better off.

Why Greater Regulation Is Needed

"You have to make it so the original intent of commodity markets, to be used almost exclusively as hedging tools, is returned," he says.

Though Dicker acknowledges that is not likely to happen, he points out that when the 2008 economic crisis froze all financial markets and investors stampeded to the sidelines, the true price of a barrel of crude oil became known: $32. It's now hovering at around $110 thanks entirely to investor demand, he says.

One of the reasons Dicker is calling for greater regulation of the oil market is that no one really knows how large it is or what is going on it on a day-to-day basis. In fact, it reminds Dicker of the market for credit default swaps, which brought down the insurance giant AIG and forced the government into a $180 billion bailout.

The market for oil traded financial instruments has been estimated at between $8 trillion and $30 trillion, but there are no concrete numbers because traders don't have to tell anyone how much they are betting either for or against the oil price. Dicker says if the government minimally required oil trading to be conducted in a transparent manner on exchanges instead of the current over-the-counter system, a large number of speculators would leave the market and the price of would fall sharply.

He also notes that the major shift in oil trading has been relatively recent. First, financial firms such as asset managers and pension funds realized they needed to diversify their holdings of stocks and bonds, which had performed badly over the previous few years.

The move was made easier by the arrival in 2006 of electronic trading of oil futures. The formerly cumbersome process of trading oil with a floor trader at the New York Mercantile Exchange was suddenly replaced by a streamlined process requiring only a few keystrokes on Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Globex computer platform.

From a few thousand trades an hour at the old NYMEX, traders now process millions of trades an hour by computer. Dicker estimates the financial market for oil is 15 times greater than the amount of actual oil being traded, with 75 types of futures being sold on exchanges. That doesn't even include all the private, over the counter transactions that take place.

"The amount of money pouring into hard assets, particularly oil, is outsized because it's new and fresh, so you get these outsized moves from $68 a barrel in the summer of 2010 to $100 now," Dicker says.

Why does all this trading drive up the price, when buyers and sellers should theoretically cancel each other out? Dicker says that is primarily because almost all oil investments being sold by the big investment banks are long trades - bets that the price will go up. While it's also possible to short oil ETFs, no one does. So that's heads ever skyward.

"There is no shorting of the market and the commodity market is not like a stock market," he says. "It is not designed to have only one half of a trade. It is designed to inspire both halves, that's how you arrive at a correct price." Dicker gives the following example: Let's say you live in a neighborhood where all the homes are priced at $200,000. Suddenly an army of buyers arrives who want desperately to move into the neighborhood. You were not really interested in selling before, but now a buyer offers you $400,000 for your $200,000 house. What are you going to say?

"That's what's going on in oil," Dicker says. "You have this army of people who have been flooding into a brand new neighborhood and they've had to inspire somebody to sell and the only way you can do that is pay an outrageous price for it."

Among the biggest winners of the new oil markets are investment banks like Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), which create new products for clients and then use that information to trade on the products. In 2004 and 2005, Goldman Sachs made $1.5 billion a year trading oil, Dicker says. In the first half of 2009 alone, the firm made $3.4 billion oil trading profits. Firms like Goldman are not taking bets that oil will move lower or higher. Trading simply means naming a spread of buy and sell prices from which they can eke out tiny but regular profits, a business without risk.

Dicker is particularly contemptuous of oil ETFs of the kind that many small investors have used as vehicles to diversify their holdings. "In these markets, they way they are set up, with all the edges with investment banks, the regular investor is just fodder," Dicker says. "The ETFs are the world's worst investment. They've only lasted this long because oil prices continue to rally."

So if gas prices would come down sharply with minimal regulation, why doesn't the government step in and impose limitations as it has done recently for other derivatives, forcing most firms to conduct their trading on exchanges? Dicker believes it is largely because large financial firms with a direct interest in oil trading have made so much money with oil that they can afford to lobby Congress to block any significant reforms.

[SC Cheesehead]

I got to the line, "Why Greater Regulation Is Needed," that was enough for me.

Greater Regulation = More Government = http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/images/smilies/shithappens.gif

[tbone]

"Lobbying" is the dirty word here. Microsoft learned this word the hard way. Nothing will ever change. We're screwed.

[Mr. Man]

:confused:I've been telling you guys this for months.

[tbone]

Weren't you the one blaming the oil companies? Not sure. Don't remember.

[MrBluGruv]

What I find most disappointing is that apparently not many people at all figured this out until now.

Honestly, this is one of the ONLY times you'll see me support government intervention, because as it is, there is NONE. That is why we have this problem in the first place, un-hindered hedging of prices. With things set up this way, you'd be stupid to NOT artificially inflate your own investments.


There's a lot more than this that bothers me though; one major point has really irked me for a while:

Why is it the price at the pump will go up BETWEEN DELIVERIES? The stuff in the tanks has already been paid for, why is it that the price must go up for what has been paid for already based on speculations of what hasn't been bought yet MIGHT cost FAR down the line?


Yeh, sorry, I know the government really screws things, but at least SOME form of minimal intervention will become necessary at some point. Maybe not direct oversight, but some serious revision of laws regarding these kinds of practices.

[sailsmen]

Here is the basic problem Gov't owns over 93% of the Worlds oil.

The other major problem is oil is traded exclusively in USA Dollars. When there is no war issue the price of oil is driven primarily by the fluctuating value of the dollar.

Per the DOE "66% of global oil reserves are in the hands of Middle Eastern regimes: Saudi Arabia (25%), Iraq (11%), Iran (8%), UAE (9%), Kuwait (9%), and Libya (2%)."

Between Japan losing it's Nuclear power, while rebuilding they will need more oil and the Mid-east on the verge of a Nuclear War the price of oil is going to sky rocket. Gov't regulation would only make it sky rocket more.

I remember when the Gov't regulated the phone companies and long distance was so expensive we wrote letters instead and I also remember when Gov't regulated airlines and flying was so expensive we rode buses.

If Gov't regulates oil trading we won't be driving Marauders or anythingelse for that matter, we will go back to bicycles. Can you still ride a "Big Wheel"?

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/data/500/medium/bigwheel.jpg (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19296)

[Dragcity]

I have said it for many years mow. Crude oil should not be on the commodities market. I think it is more a utility than a commodity. Everyone just wants a profit and loves to *** the other guy to get it.

This is why the old laws of supply and demand no longer hold true.

[LIGHTNIN1]

Government intervention in a situation like this will only make it worse.They could not even run the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas successfully, remember that? They went bankrupt. How can you mess up selling naked women and liquor?:shake:

[sailsmen]

If you favor rent control and the amazing way it drives up rents then you will also favor oil control.
Is the system really broke? Why is 80% off the USA Coast where a 300 year supply of oil banned from drilling? Why won't our Gov't sell us our oil which will generate enough tax revenue to pay off the NAtional Debt several times over?
Domestic Crude Oil Prices
1946-Present
U.S. Average (in $/bbl.)
Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted
1946 $1.63 $17.92
1947 $2.16 $21.06
1948 $2.77 $25.12
1949 $2.77 $25.36
1950 $2.77 $25.10
1951 $2.77 $23.26
1952 $2.77 $22.74
1953 $2.92 $23.74
1954 $2.99 $24.27
1955 $2.93 $23.81
1956 $2.94 $23.59
1957 $3.14 $24.35
1958 $3.00 $22.66
1959 $3.00 $22.43
1960 $2.91 $21.47
1961 $2.85 $20.78
1962 $2.85 $20.54
1963 $2.91 $20.73
1964 $3.00 $20.08
1965 $3.01 $20.81
1966 $3.10 $20.82
1967 $3.12 $20.39
1968 $3.18 $19.90
1969 $3.32 $19.73
1970 $3.39 $19.04
1971 $3.60 $19.38
1972 $3.60 $20.78
1973 $4.75 $23.13
1974 $9.35 $41.27
1975 $12.21 $49.42
1976 $13.10 $50.19
1977 $14.40 $51.76
1978 $14.95 $49.99
1979 $25.10 $74.67
1980 $37.42 $99.11
1981 $35.75 $85.82
1982 $31.83 $71.95
1983 $29.08 $63.66
1984 $28.75 $60.34
1985 $26.92 $54.54
1986 $14.44 $28.70
1987 $17.75 $33.05
1988 $14.87 $27.45
1989 $18.33 $32.22
1990 $23.19 $38.57
1991 $20.20 $32.33
1992 $19.25 $29.90
1993 $16.75 $25.28
1994 $15.66 $23.02
1995 $16.75 $23.96
1996 $20.46 $28.42
1997 $18.64 $25.32
1998 $11.91 $15.93
1999 $16.56 $21.62
2000 $27.39 $34.65
2001 $23.00 $28.32
2002 $22.81 $27.62
2003 $27.69 $32.82
2004 $37.66 $43.42
2005 $50.04 $55.80
2006 $58.30 $63.02
2007 $64.20 $67.37
2008 $91.48 $92.31
2009 $53.48 $54.24
2010 $71.21 $71.57

[Baaad GN]

What are you guy's crying about? We started the Dept of Energy to handle these kind of problems and fund them with almost a Billion Dollar per year!!!!! So everything is fine! They have everything under control, relax, enjoy the "CHANGE".

[GAMike]

The present govt. will not intervene.... They like the fact that prices are rising. As they do, so does the revenue from the taxes on each gallon of gas........ 6% of $3.00 per gal. or 6% of $4.00 per gal. Which make the govt. more money to fund their programs and pay down the ridiculous debt.

Goldman & JP Morgan ect have it made......... One dept. bids/shorts oil, another develops investment instruments that appeal to institutional investors of limited experience in this business, and all that money made, can be lent to new companies advancing alternative energy.... This gains these banks favor with the Federal Govt. and keeps them from over regulation....... And...... If that company decides to IPO? Guess who takes em public and makes another couple mill.........

I'm sure their are flaws in my logic, but this is essentially what I believe. Like most here, I am on the outside looking in.

I still believe in a free market economy, but think that stiffer penalties should be put in place for people who manipulate markets, and for govt. officials who are proven to operate with conflicts of interest.

[Mr. Man]

Weren't you the one blaming the oil companies? Not sure. Don't remember.
Don't think it was me.

Oil companies base their profits off of percentages. The higher the cost of a barrel of oil the bigger the profit but the percentages of are fairly consistent.

Wall Street in recent months bases it's math on voodoo and tea leaves.

[MrBluGruv]

Wall Street in recent months bases it's math on voodoo and tea leaves.

I think this is something pretty much everyone can agree on.

Too bad we haven't seen some kind of trend with this behavior to draw experience from, like you know huge market busts shortly following the wide-spread use of such practices, like living completely off margin and creating investments in pretty much imaginary things.....oh wait. :P

[kernie]

Yup, blame the government.

Big buisness, wall street get a free pass again, but perhaps they will change and think of the public good instead of their own greed.

Ya think?

[sailsmen]

I blame who owns the oil and 93% is owned by Gov't.

The solution is for all of the people who think the situation in the ME is a "tempest in a tea pot" to put up your own money that oil should be less then it is now. Come one come all, have we a deal for you, those who think the pirce of oil will drop put up or whine up!:banana:

[CBT]

.....meanwhile.....


In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/01/exxonmobil-oil-profits-slump) in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/) any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings. <---WTF?!
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/) from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-25/business/ct-biz-0225-boeing-tanker-20110224_1_air-force-tanker-contract-boeing-victory-rival-eads) from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18) of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html), "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."
Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. <---Double WTF?!
ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. <---Seriously WTF?!
Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.


I wish I only had to pay 0 to 7% in taxes. :alone:

[duhtroll]

...but we have to keep cutting corporate tax rates so they can create all those great jobs in our job market.


.....meanwhile.....


In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/01/exxonmobil-oil-profits-slump) in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/) any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings. <---WTF?!
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/) from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-25/business/ct-biz-0225-boeing-tanker-20110224_1_air-force-tanker-contract-boeing-victory-rival-eads) from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18) of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html), "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."
Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. <---Double WTF?!
ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. <---Seriously WTF?!
Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.


I wish I only had to pay 0 to 7% in taxes. :alone:

[Kodimar]

It's pretty pointless to tax corporations, they only pass the additional costs to us anyway.

[duhtroll]

Given that they will definitely not pass on savings to us, it can't hurt either. Shop their competitors if their prices are high.

[Kodimar]

They might not pass on the savings but they might hire me and give me a paycheck.

[Kodimar]

But in all honestly if they have a lesser tax burden supply and demand will bring prices down.

[Haggis]

Nuke them all.....Revolution.

[tbone]

At least the corporations are run reasonably well, don't confiscate our money without our choosing to give it to them and redistribute/waste it as they see fit, all the while sinking further and further into debt until they ultimately collapse. No "corporation" is run worse than the US Government.

After all, it is the GOVERNMENT that allows the loopholes which some corporations use to pay little or no taxes. Hello?

[GAMike]

Not disputing anything CBT has here. Just wondering if this is all true, why it is, and are those reasons still valid reasons to continue offering this benefit to these corporations.

Obviously if the company got a tax break because they supported a candidate or two, thats bs, but if they got one because of an economic reason (subsidy for falling prices, regional economic stability - adding jobs, ect), I guess I can understand as long as there is an end date established, the reason is still valid today, and that the benefit is reviewed regularly to determine if the program can be cut short.

Every business sector in America from bankers, to farmers, to big oil, to manufacturing has recieved money from the govt. at one point and time.


.....meanwhile.....


In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/01/exxonmobil-oil-profits-slump) in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/) any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings. <---WTF?!
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/) from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-25/business/ct-biz-0225-boeing-tanker-20110224_1_air-force-tanker-contract-boeing-victory-rival-eads) from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18) of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html), "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."
Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. <---Double WTF?!
ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. <---Seriously WTF?!
Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.


I wish I only had to pay 0 to 7% in taxes. :alone:

[CBT]

Not disputing anything CBT has here. Just wondering if this is all true, why it is, and are those reasons still valid reasons to continue offering this benefit to these corporations.

Obviously if the company got a tax break because they supported a candidate or two, thats bs, but if they got one because of an economic reason (subsidy for falling prices, regional economic stability - adding jobs, ect), I guess I can understand as long as there is an end date established, the reason is still valid today, and that the benefit is reviewed regularly to determine if the program can be cut short.

Every business sector in America from bankers, to farmers, to big oil, to manufacturing has recieved money from the govt. at one point and time.

Subsidies should be outlawed. If the government has to give a company or an owner/operator taxpayer money time, after time, after time, after time, it is time to let them fail. A more efficient company will take its place, or a better use for the product will come about. Or in the case of ethenol corngas, finding NO use for it and letting it go would be best.

[tbone]

.....meanwhile.....


In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/01/exxonmobil-oil-profits-slump) in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/) any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings. <---WTF?!
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/) from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-25/business/ct-biz-0225-boeing-tanker-20110224_1_air-force-tanker-contract-boeing-victory-rival-eads) from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18) of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html), "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."
Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. <---Double WTF?!
ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. <---Seriously WTF?!
Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.


I wish I only had to pay 0 to 7% in taxes. :alone:

Just curious why you don't mention General Electric, headed by Jeffery Immelt, who is Obama's little love child. GE, which owns NBC, and therefore the infamous MSNBC, paid no federal income tax last year either (by some reports), and stands to benefit massively from government contracts in Obama's green agenda. And Immelt was appointed by Obama as head of a board on "jobs and competitiveness" after he ran GE's stock into the ground? Payback for them being in the tank for him obviously.:beer:

If you are looking to point out injustices in the corporate world, I would say this should be at the top of your list.

[SC Cheesehead]

Given that they will definitely not pass on savings to us, it can't hurt either. Shop their competitors if their prices are high.


But in all honestly if they have a lesser tax burden supply and demand will bring prices down.

Both points above highlight the competitive benefit of low corporate tax rates.

If the cost of doing business is decreased, market forces will drive prices down, exactly for the reason duhtroll pointed out (e.g. shopping the competitors), but contrary to his initial point, savings ARE passed along to the consumer in the end. By this I mean that while companies have profitability targets, and obviously will gladly take higher profit margins, there is a limit to what they can earn, based on competitive market forces.

If demand is high, and prices increase, the market may continue consuming for a period of time, but ultimately, either demand will decrease, or substitution will occur, which in turn will drive down demand for a particular good or service.

Lower prices typcially generate higher demand. Higher prices typcially will drive down demand until equilibrum is reached. It may take time, but ultimately, market forces prevail.

http://www.sundaybrunchdress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/supply_and_demand.jpg

[CBT]

I didn't mention GE because it wasn't in that list I cut/copy/pasted. By all means, tho, have at GE. There isn't enough bandwidth to point out all the injustices in corporate America.


Just curious why you don't mention General Electric, headed by Jeffery Immelt, who is Obama's little love child. GE, which owns NBC, and therefore the infamous MSNBC, paid no federal income tax last year either (by some reports), and stands to benefit massively from government contracts in Obama's green agenda. And Immelt was appointed by Obama as head of a board on "jobs and competitiveness" after he ran GE's stock into the ground? Payback for them being in the tank for him obviously.:beer:

If you are looking to point out injustices in the corporate world, I would say this should be at the top of your list.

[kernie]

Both points above highlight the competitive benefit of low corporate tax rates.

If the cost of doing business is decreased, market forces will drive prices down, exactly for the reason duhtroll pointed out (e.g. shopping the competitors), but contrary to his initial point, savings ARE passed along to the consumer in the end. By this I mean that while companies have profitability targets, and obviously will gladly take higher profit margins, there is a limit to what they can earn, based on competitive market forces.

If demand is high, and prices increase, the market may continue consuming for a period of time, but ultimately, either demand will decrease, or substitution will occur, which in turn will drive down demand for a particular good or service.

Lower prices typcially generate higher demand. Higher prices typcially will drive down demand until equilibrum is reached. It may take time, but ultimately, market forces prevail.

http://www.sundaybrunchdress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/supply_and_demand.jpg

I think the point of this thread is to point out that 'supply and demand' is being distorted by speculators and traders.

:beer:

[Dragcity]

Economic models = FAIL today.

[CBT]

Lower prices typcially generate higher demand. Higher prices typcially will drive down demand until equilibrum is reached. It may take time, but ultimately, market forces prevail.

http://www.sundaybrunchdress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/supply_and_demand.jpg

The "invisible hand" at work.

[SC Cheesehead]

I think the point of this thread is to point out that 'supply and demand' is being distorted by speculators and traders.

:beer:
Agreed, but what I was trying to point out is that over the long term, market forces will prevail over short term speculation.

Current situation is an example. The unrest in the the Middle East is creating uncertainty about (perceived) oil supplies, which in turn triggers speculation. Reduce or eliminate the uncertainty, and speculation diminishes substantially.

[SC Cheesehead]

The "invisible hand" at work.

Exactly.

Adam Smith defined the free market model over 300 years ago and it's been functioning pretty well since then.

Certainly, there have been ups and downs, but over the long run, the "invisible hand" has kept capitalistic economies on course.

[Kodimar]

Being distorted by government.

[Dragcity]

Gov't taxes it, investors are distorting it.

[duhtroll]

We're still waiting for this to happen. Didn't happen in the 2001-2002 recession, either.


They might not pass on the savings but they might hire me and give me a paycheck.

[duhtroll]

Yeah, corporations never file for bankruptcy to avoid debt or move things offshore to avoid paying taxes, or any number of other ways they hoard money. :lol:

Those 250 million dollar payouts are coming from somewhere.

EDIT: Should also add that it is specific parties and legislators that allow these corporate loopholes. I am not one to usually lay the blame all on one party, but this one is pretty one-sided.


At least the corporations are run reasonably well, don't confiscate our money without our choosing to give it to them and redistribute/waste it as they see fit, all the while sinking further and further into debt until they ultimately collapse. No "corporation" is run worse than the US Government.

After all, it is the GOVERNMENT that allows the loopholes which some corporations use to pay little or no taxes. Hello?

[duhtroll]

The ethanol thing is a short term solution designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil. I don't recall them saying it would be cheaper in total cost - just in purchase of barrels from overseas.

Ethanol's days are already numbered -- once we figure out alternative, better technologies it will fade.

But I don't mind it in the interim - rich farmers mean good local revenue which also means my employer has more money to spend. Record harvests here last year.


Subsidies should be outlawed. If the government has to give a company or an owner/operator taxpayer money time, after time, after time, after time, it is time to let them fail. A more efficient company will take its place, or a better use for the product will come about. Or in the case of ethenol corngas, finding NO use for it and letting it go would be best.

[CBT]

Farm subsidies are the biggest waste of taxpayer money. Bigger than illegal aliens and welfare addicts.

In 2010 America burned about 12.8 billion gallons of ethanol. But since a gallon of ethanol yields one-third less energy than gasoline, we reduced gasoline consumption only 8.7 billion gallons. We could achieve the same degree of “security” at no cost to taxpayers by increasing average fuel efficiency by just 1.5 miles per gallon. Simply keeping tires properly inflated would do that. The $5.8 billion a year that taxpayers give oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline buys no real security gains.

[CBT]

Here, you can plug in your zip code and see who gets what. Awesome website.



http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=00000&regionname=theUnitedStates

[duhtroll]

Yeah, and if they did that AND we used ethanol, we double the savings.

Arguments like this are circular and really don't prove anything.

Because of ethanol, we buy less fuel from overseas. It doesn't change the costs, just where the money is going.

Just like using corn syrup vs. sugar. It redirects the money to something WE produce vs. something we don't.

Just like buying a Ford vs. buying a Honda - money stays here, regardless of savings.


Farm subsidies are the biggest waste of taxpayer money. Bigger than illegal aliens and welfare addicts.

In 2010 America burned about 12.8 billion gallons of ethanol. But since a gallon of ethanol yields one-third less energy than gasoline, we reduced gasoline consumption only 8.7 billion gallons. We could achieve the same degree of “security” at no cost to taxpayers by increasing average fuel efficiency by just 1.5 miles per gallon. Simply keeping tires properly inflated would do that. The $5.8 billion a year that taxpayers give oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline buys no real security gains.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yeah, and if they did that AND we used ethanol, we double the savings.

Arguments like this are circular and really don't prove anything.

Because of ethanol, we buy less fuel from overseas. It doesn't change the costs, just where the money is going.

Just like using corn syrup vs. sugar. It redirects the money to something WE produce vs. something we don't.

Just like buying a Ford vs. buying a Honda - money stays here, regardless of savings.

The problem I have with ethanol is that the cost to produce it offsets the gains as a fuel substitute, plus the majority of vehicles using it have lower fuel economy, so what's the upside (other than the benefit to the farming ecomony)?

Would rather we invest in more domestic drilling to reduce consumption of imported oil.

[duhtroll]

Lower mileage? We have been using ethanol longer than anyone. I don't see the lower mileage argument. My MM got 24.5 MPG before I put 4.10s on it and now gets about 18 with SC and 4.10s. No MPG problem there.

My Nissan work beater roller skate gets 33-34 on the highway, so no MPG problems there. Matter of fact every single car I have owned has performed at or above rated MPG on the sticker.

Back when we could choose whether to use ethanol or regular unleaded, the ethanol was $0.10-0.15 cheaper per gallon. I got slightly better MPG with 93 octane super unleaded (no ethanol) compared to 92 ethanol, but with my tune that was to be expected.

My MM has performed relatively well at the track, too.

I fully agree with you guys that ethanol is not the best answer. However, it was never intended to be a permanent solution and some of the stories that are anti-ethanol are just boogeyman stories.

The upside is that at least around here it has saved me a few hundred dollars on gas. And it is produced here vs. over there.

Would you buy a $10 US Item over a $10 foreign item?


The problem I have with ethanol is that the cost to produce it offsets the gains as a fuel substitute, plus the majority of vehicles using it have lower fuel economy, so what's the upside (other than the benefit to the farming ecomony)?

Would rather we invest in more domestic drilling to reduce consumption of imported oil.

[duhtroll]

Great info!


Here, you can plug in your zip code and see who gets what. Awesome website.



http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=00000&regionname=theUnitedStates

[LIGHTNIN1]

This alternative energy thing is really catching on. I think it is called WALKING or riding a poopless horse. How many years we been working on that and how far have we advanced? We are about where we started. I just finished reading a great book on the subject, very funny also. Common Sense Not Required by Evan Boberg a former Chrysler engineer. He points out how ridiculous the whole subject is.

[Leadfoot281]

Farm subsidies are the biggest waste of taxpayer money. Bigger than illegal aliens and welfare addicts.

In 2010 America burned about 12.8 billion gallons of ethanol. But since a gallon of ethanol yields one-third less energy than gasoline, we reduced gasoline consumption only 8.7 billion gallons. We could achieve the same degree of “security” at no cost to taxpayers by increasing average fuel efficiency by just 1.5 miles per gallon. Simply keeping tires properly inflated would do that. The $5.8 billion a year that taxpayers give oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline buys no real security gains.

I guess I'm a welfare addict now. :mad2:

Enjoy your supper.

[tbone]

Yeah, corporations never file for bankruptcy to avoid debt or move things offshore to avoid paying taxes, or any number of other ways they hoard money. :lol:




My point is that corporations are run well in general and make PROFITS, profits that so many people these days love to demonize. Governments are only on the take. They take your money and generate nothing.

Ever heard of FedEx or DHL? I think the US Post Office has problems with them.......

Why do you hate American business so much?

[CBT]

Due to which part? Getting paid to set aside land for "conservation" (getting paid to not plant anything, but leasing the land so someone else can, so basically you get paid twice), getting paid to grow socialized corn (so Ethanol companies get subsidies to produce gas from corn, and you get subsidies to grow it, thereby the taxpayer gets ****ed twice), or are you a lazy, happily unemployed person who has no intention of ever pulling away from the free milk at Lady Liberty's teat?
I'm starting to think getting ****ed as a taxpayer is starting to rival the amount of times I got ****ed while on active duty rock star status. No offense.



I guess I'm a welfare addict now. :mad2:

Enjoy your supper.

[SC Cheesehead]

My point is that corporations are run well in general and make PROFITS, profits that so many people these days love to demonize. Governments are only on the take. They take your money and generate nothing.

Ever heard of FedEx or DHL? I think the US Post Office has problems with them.......

Why do you hate American business so much?

+1, private enterprise generates wealth, governments only consume or re-distribute it.


Due to which part? Getting paid to set aside land for "conservation" (getting paid to not plant anything, but leasing the land so someone else can, so basically you get paid twice), getting paid to grow socialized corn (so Ethanol companies get subsidies to produce gas from corn, and you get subsidies to grow it, thereby the taxpayer gets ****ed twice), or are you a lazy, happily unemployed person who has no intention of ever pulling away from the free milk at Lady Liberty's teat?
I'm starting to think getting ****ed as a taxpayer is starting to rival the amount of times I got ****ed while on active duty rock star status. No offense.

Uhhhh, not sure I'd categorize Leadfoot as a "typical" welfare type, much less a "lazy, happily unemployed person". He's a hard-working Midwestern farmer, and a pretty self-sufficent one at that.

[PonyUP]

I'm starting to think getting ****ed as a taxpayer is starting to rival the amount of times I got ****ed while on active duty rock star status. No offense.

So the governement has only ****ed you once? :shake:

[Dragcity]

Here sticking up for Leadfoot. He's one of the good guys!

[CBT]

+1, private enterprise generates wealth, governments only consume or re-distribute it.



Uhhhh, not sure I'd categorize Leadfoot as a "typical" welfare type, much less a "lazy, happily unemployed person". He's a hard-working Midwestern farmer, and a pretty self-sufficent one at that.

He said he guesses he's a welfare addict, I asked how so. I don't dis-like him or farmers, I dis-like my tax dollars propping up an industry again and again and again for billions of dollars a year. Outsourcing makes things cheaper, can't we outsource farming?

[duhtroll]

"American business" and "corporations" are not synonyms, but nice try.

The largest corporations in this country are its biggest abusers. If by "run well in general" you mean "stacking money at the top and breaking the backs of those on the bottom" then I suppose you are right.

Why should they care? They have an endless supply of people to abuse. When they run out in this country or when people here no longer let them, they find people overseas to abuse.

Or do you dispute the largest disparity in wealth in the history of this country?

Where else do you get 250 million dollars for being fired?


My point is that corporations are run well in general and make PROFITS, profits that so many people these days love to demonize. Governments are only on the take. They take your money and generate nothing.

Ever heard of FedEx or DHL? I think the US Post Office has problems with them.......

Why do you hate American business so much?

[GAMike]

"American business" and "corporations" are not synonyms, but nice try.

The largest corporations in this country are its biggest abusers. If by "run well in general" you mean "stacking money at the top and breaking the backs of those on the bottom" then I suppose you are right.
dutroll.....Can you define the "abuse" you speak of?


Why should they care? They have an endless supply of people to abuse. How are they abusing people today? These people are not shakled, they can leave any time they want..... When they run out in this country or when people here no longer let them, they find people overseas to abuse. I don't disagree that companies change their business practices when they ship jobs overseas, but all they are doing is conforming to the standards and regulations that exist in the country they move too..... To apply the standards employed in the U.S. would minimize the advantage of moving in the first place...... Americans often make the mistake of applying their standards to other parts of the world........

Kind of like Muslims who come to America and pay more attention to their beliefs even if they conflict with our laws........ Standards and laws are different of course, but sometimes they have similar effects.

Or do you dispute the largest disparity in wealth in the history of this country? My opinion is, "those who take the risks, have every right to loose as much as they as they have a right to profit"....... Those who have wealth and put that wealth in play should not be ridiculed. There is no certainty of profit.... Who are we to sit back and chastise when we don't have skin in the game. Profit is not a dirty word. People/Corportations should not be deamonized for making money as long as its done legally.

Where else do you get 250 million dollars for being fired? If you achieve a position/reputation to a point where your services/expertise are in such high demand, and can negotiate terms and conditions that contain a sevrence/seperation package such as this, why wouldn't you???

Want our kids to be competitive with the rest of the world in the future? Then kids need to understand how performance, consistency, reputation, work ethic, and subject matter expertise come together to open doors, and create advantages/opportunities that are different than what may have been thought of as impossible........ People need to understand that you need to compete, not just participate if you want to make change or get ahead...... This is the kind of discussions that need to occur in our institutions of higher learning, if our kids are to have a chance.......

Again, just thinking out loud here. Not bashing just expressing an out of work peabrains POV:o


Take a look at this thread, and read this guys story in it...... Is he a bad guy??? http://www.luxury4play.com/garage/53609-finally-got-around-some-garage-pics.html

Look up Elon Musk........ He seems like a prick, but you have to respect his accomplishments given where he came from and how he got to where he is.....

Ok.... Back to gas prices :-)

[duhtroll]

Abuse is when people in power mistreat those who can do nothing about it.

I'm going to tackle the "if you don't like your job, the go somewhere else" position hopefully once and for all.

The vast majority of people do not have that option (yes, vast). Either the jobs do not exist or they are not able to move their entire family to chase them. People who say "if you don't like your job there is always another one available" are simply incorrect.

SOMETIMES there are jobs available and most of the time there are not, especially now. The people on this board are for the most part privileged with ability, support from family, friends, etc.. Yes, I count myself among the privileged.

There are millions of people in this country who do not have the option to attain higher paying jobs because they do not have the high-dollar education required.

"Well, just go out and get an education then!" people say.

How are they going to pay for it? How are they going to support a family while being in school and paying off loans?

To the privileged few on this board, things like that seem easy because for most of us compared to the majority of the country, they WERE easy. We grew up in families that had money, helped with college, had people to support us.

EDIT: Insert the three people on this board who actually had a hard childhood chiming in, plus the 5 more that will insist their childhood was tough, when it was nothing of the sort.

There are also many idiots running corporations/in management positions because they were placed in high dollar educations (and barely passed or even bought their way out) and/or positions by inheritance or nepotism. Their ability doesn't rival many of the "blue collar" people out there, but their positions will never be switched, no matter the actions of either of them.

When there are thousands if not millions of qualified and educated candidates waiting for jobs, "just switching jobs" is not an option most of the time.

It takes major balls to tell someone that if they don't like their job, it is their own fault. Sometimes that is the only job available for them. The same could be said to anyone who loses their job.

"Sorry pal, you are in an industry that fluctuates like that. You should have seen that coming. Take that 20 years training that is now not applicable to anything in this area and go find another job to support your family or just go get another degree because you got laid off."

And as far as jobs in this country vs. overseas, the whole argument in lowering corporate taxes is because they say they will add jobs if taxes are lower. You can't say on one hand that shipping jobs overseas is just a misapplication of American standards to other countries (if I am paraphrasing your text correctly) and then also use the argument that lower taxes mean more jobs here.

I disagree about the "certainty of profit" also. CEOs who ran companies into the ground and "only" getting $250 million golden parachutes?

Damn. I wonder how they can even LIVE on that? ;)

I have even heard people say "Well, one year they could make 25 million and then the next year things could hit the fan and they could only make one million."

...and expect it to be convincing as to how income disparity in this country is not a problem. The fact is that the few at the top control a greater % of the nation's wealth than they ever have and it is getting worse, not better.

Eventually, those who work every bit as hard and are just as valuable as that CEO are going to rise up and demand change in this country. I can only hope that it is not violent.

I will add my standard disclaimer here. I like my job and my position in society, as it were. Sure, I'd like more money, but I am comfortable and don't spend time being envious of others. That is not what this is about.

I DO get very tired of rich people who largely inherited their wealth saying they deserve it because they work harder than the rest of us, though.

Be careful on the negotiating part - you are saying if the CEO can negotiate a $250 million severance package in his *contract* it is OK, but if a union negotiates a benefits package in their *contract* then they don't deserve it when times are tough? Where is the difference?

In the case of the (private sector) union benefits package, apparently that high dollar CEO didn't have the brains to see the costs for what they were, and maybe doesn't really deserve that high salary.

[tbone]

Abuse is when people in power mistreat those who can do nothing about it.

I'm going to tackle the "if you don't like your job, the go somewhere else" position hopefully once and for all.

The vast majority of people do not have that option (yes, vast). Either the jobs do not exist or they are not able to move their entire family to chase them. People who say "if you don't like your job there is always another one available" are simply incorrect.

SOMETIMES there are jobs available and most of the time there are not, especially now. The people on this board are for the most part privileged with ability, support from family, friends, etc.. Yes, I count myself among the privileged.

There are millions of people in this country who do not have the option to attain higher paying jobs because they do not have the high-dollar education required.

"Well, just go out and get an education then!" people say.

How are they going to pay for it? How are they going to support a family while being in school and paying off loans?

To the privileged few on this board, things like that seem easy because for most of us compared to the majority of the country, they WERE easy. We grew up in families that had money, helped with college, had people to support us.

EDIT: Insert the three people on this board who actually had a hard childhood chiming in, plus the 5 more that will insist their childhood was tough, when it was nothing of the sort.

There are also many idiots running corporations/in management positions because they were placed in high dollar educations (and barely passed or even bought their way out) and/or positions by inheritance or nepotism. Their ability doesn't rival many of the "blue collar" people out there, but their positions will never be switched, no matter the actions of either of them.

When there are thousands if not millions of qualified and educated candidates waiting for jobs, "just switching jobs" is not an option most of the time.

It takes major balls to tell someone that if they don't like their job, it is their own fault. Sometimes that is the only job available for them. The same could be said to anyone who loses their job.

"Sorry pal, you are in an industry that fluctuates like that. You should have seen that coming. Take that 20 years training that is now not applicable to anything in this area and go find another job to support your family or just go get another degree because you got laid off."

And as far as jobs in this country vs. overseas, the whole argument in lowering corporate taxes is because they say they will add jobs if taxes are lower. You can't say on one hand that shipping jobs overseas is just a misapplication of American standards to other countries (if I am paraphrasing your text correctly) and then also use the argument that lower taxes mean more jobs here.

I disagree about the "certainty of profit" also. CEOs who ran companies into the ground and "only" getting $250 million golden parachutes?

Damn. I wonder how they can even LIVE on that? ;)

I have even heard people say "Well, one year they could make 25 million and then the next year things could hit the fan and they could only make one million."

...and expect it to be convincing as to how income disparity in this country is not a problem. The fact is that the few at the top control a greater % of the nation's wealth than they ever have and it is getting worse, not better.

Eventually, those who work every bit as hard and are just as valuable as that CEO are going to rise up and demand change in this country. I can only hope that it is not violent.

I will add my standard disclaimer here. I like my job and my position in society, as it were. Sure, I'd like more money, but I am comfortable and don't spend time being envious of others. That is not what this is about.

I DO get very tired of rich people who largely inherited their wealth saying they deserve it because they work harder than the rest of us, though.

Be careful on the negotiating part - you are saying if the CEO can negotiate a $250 million severance package in his *contract* it is OK, but if a union negotiates a benefits package in their *contract* then they don't deserve it when times are tough? Where is the difference?

In the case of the (private sector) union benefits package, apparently that high dollar CEO didn't have the brains to see the costs for what they were, and maybe doesn't really deserve that high salary.


Short and to the point works best, unless your real name is Barry Hussein Obama.

Corporations = Business and if the corporation is doing business in America then it's "American Business".

[rayjay]

Since the commies want us off oil the cost will never come down. As a pensioner stealing from the public for my support I will not be able to afford to heat my house any longer with fuel oil. I am therefore investigating installing a coal burning furnace that allegedly costs 1/3 the prenonsense price of oil to use. I could care less if I pollute the environment. One good house fire causes thousands of times the pollution I will create. Put those poor schmucks in jail too.
My family and I live in a place that is cold 6 months of the year and have to use heat, along with millions & millions of other people who live up here. I am sure once enough people switch to coal then we'll get BOHICA'd for it....

[PonyUP]

A business' entire reason for existence is to make as much profit as they can, and then you want to get on them because they do it well. A business profit is directly correlated to what the market will bare as far as pricing their product. This directly relates to gas, we can talk about all the alternatives we want, but the solution is not here yet, which means the market needs gas. As cost's rise, so will the cost at the pump. However it will only go as high as people are willing to pay. Do we need to be at $4 a gallon? Hell no, are we paying it? You bet. Business 101, if you have a product that you can charge more for and draw more profits and people will pay it, do it.

Until their is a revolt at the pump or a huge energy crisis to drive prices down, we will never get below $2 a gallon again, why? Because we would be happy just to pay $3 again.

But troll, I would challenge you to think of this, these corporations that you have labeled as evil, if they are over regulated to the point where it drives down profits, that hurts the economy as it drives down stocks and a companies willingness to do business here.

Regulation should probably only be limited to keeping things within the law, beyond that, if a company receives incentives and tax breaks to do business here in America, and that helps control the pricing in the market, I'm all for it. Just my opinion :beer:

[GAMike]

Abuse is when people in power mistreat those who can do nothing about it. But who defines what mistreatment is...... In one part of our country, saying something a certain way could be mistreatment, while in another the same thing could be thought of as funny.....

I'm going to tackle the "if you don't like your job, the go somewhere else" position hopefully once and for all.

The vast majority of people do not have that option (yes, vast). Either the jobs do not exist or they are not able to move their entire family to chase them. People who say "if you don't like your job there is always another one available" are simply incorrect.


SOMETIMES there are jobs available and most of the time there are not, especially now. The people on this board are for the most part privileged with ability, support from family, friends, etc.. Yes, I count myself among the privileged.

Just because you got the job, it does not mean its yours for life.... The choices and decisions made effect the jobs people are qualified for, and their other opportunities.... I firmly believe this, and I am looking at it from the flip side.... I had every advantage in life, and made some really poor decisions, that effect me now.

There are millions of people in this country who do not have the option to attain higher paying jobs because they do not have the high-dollar education required.

"Well, just go out and get an education then!" people say.

How are they going to pay for it? How are they going to support a family while being in school and paying off loans? There are people who do exactely this..... Again, circumstance has to do with physical geography mental conditioning, a willingness to do more, better ect....

To the privileged few on this board, things like that seem easy because for most of us compared to the majority of the country, they WERE easy. We grew up in families that had money, helped with college, had people to support us.

EDIT: Insert the three people on this board who actually had a hard childhood chiming in, plus the 5 more that will insist their childhood was tough, when it was nothing of the sort.

There are also many idiots running corporations/in management positions because they were placed in high dollar educations (and barely passed or even bought their way out) and/or positions by inheritance or nepotism. Their ability doesn't rival many of the "blue collar" people out there, but their positions will never be switched, no matter the actions of either of them.

You cannot lump corporate America all together and make sweeping statements......

When there are thousands if not millions of qualified and educated candidates waiting for jobs, "just switching jobs" is not an option most of the time.

It takes major balls to tell someone that if they don't like their job, it is their own fault. Totally disagree........ A person who does not like his/her job is more likely to steal, slack, and in some cases be negligent...All of this effects productivity/performance on some level and reduces the ability to move internally or externally to a better job..... if you accept a job you don't like, it is up to your personal sense of responsibility to work your way out of it... Sometimes that is the only job available for them. The same could be said to anyone who loses their job.

"Sorry pal, you are in an industry that fluctuates like that. You should have seen that coming. Take that 20 years training that is now not applicable to anything in this area and go find another job to support your family or just go get another degree because you got laid off." Jobs are not "static". Neither are careers. Just ask BigSlim (father of The Banshee - My Marauder) Ask him how many times he has retooled his skillset working for Ford on the assembly line. Want to stay employed today. Keep investing in your skills, and keep an eye open. Times are not like they were when my father logged 35 years with GTE. (Some exceptions to the rule, but for the most part corp. loyalty and employee loyalty are obsolete in all but the mining, rail, some telecom, and manufacturing companies).

And as far as jobs in this country vs. overseas, the whole argument in lowering corporate taxes is because they say they will add jobs if taxes are lower. You can't say on one hand that shipping jobs overseas is just a misapplication of American standards to other countries (if I am paraphrasing your text correctly) and then also use the argument that lower taxes mean more jobs here.

I disagree about the "certainty of profit" also. CEOs who ran companies into the ground and "only" getting $250 million golden parachutes? They had some success somewhere, and negotiated a contract based on it. Past performance is no indicator of future performance, but it helps).


Damn. I wonder how they can even LIVE on that? ;) Its not up to us to decide who can live on what........ If any of us are in a position to negotiate at that level, I am sure there is not one of us who would say, " ok..... Thats enough". If you tell me you would, I call BS 100 times over.

I have even heard people say "Well, one year they could make 25 million and then the next year things could hit the fan and they could only make one million."

...and expect it to be convincing as to how income disparity in this country is not a problem. The fact is that the few at the top control a greater % of the nation's wealth than they ever have and it is getting worse, not better.

Eventually, those who work every bit as hard and are just as valuable as that CEO are going to rise up and demand change in this country. You are assuming the above is fact...... Are you sure you can say every person who works for a company, works as hard as a CEO? I worked for CEO's that would run circles around their employees, and have worked for lazy ones as well. Each situation must be looked at on a company by company basis for this statement to be true. I can only hope that it is not violent.

I will add my standard disclaimer here. I like my job and my position in society, as it were. Sure, I'd like more money, but I am comfortable and don't spend time being envious of others. That is not what this is about.

I DO get very tired of rich people who largely inherited their wealth saying they deserve it because they work harder than the rest of us, though.

Be careful on the negotiating part - you are saying if the CEO can negotiate a $250 million severance package in his *contract* it is OK, but if a union negotiates a benefits package in their *contract* then they don't deserve it when times are tough? Where is the difference?

The difference is the individual CEO has a body of work, a reputation for performance, and other demonstrated skills. The union has a reputation as a group. A group that consists of dues paying rank and file that makes no distinction regarding high performing members or dead weight because its a dues paying numbers game. Plus its an us against them argument that is long past its relevancy in many industries. Unless you are in the union leadership, shop steward or on the union payroll in some no show or otherwise capacity. The games unions play with all that money are just as bad as the CEO that underperforms.

In the case of the (private sector) union benefits package, apparently that high dollar CEO didn't have the brains to see the costs for what they were, and maybe doesn't really deserve that high salary.

I know we are dyametrically opposed dutroll, and I am certain neither of us have it 100% correct. It is however good to bat this around a bit, and try to learn a little where we can:beer:

[tbone]

"American business" and "corporations" are not synonyms, but nice try.

The largest corporations in this country are its biggest abusers. If by "run well in general" you mean "stacking money at the top and breaking the backs of those on the bottom" then I suppose you are right.

Why should they care? They have an endless supply of people to abuse. When they run out in this country or when people here no longer let them, they find people overseas to abuse.

Or do you dispute the largest disparity in wealth in the history of this country?

Where else do you get 250 million dollars for being fired?


You forgot to mention Franklin Raines (who headed the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and the millions he made while driving those GOVERNMENT enterprises into bankruptcy at taxpayer's expense. I will never understand why liberals have such selective memories and hate business, love government.

If it bothers you so much I suggest a one way flight to Beijing. Or even better Kim Jong Il or Hugo Chavez's house.:burnout:

[CBT]

You know I love you but I have to point out the only flaw in your logic is that not all businesses do it legally. If Smuckers made the best grape jelly in the world and charged 50 bucks a jar, there are people who would pay it. And there are also people who would not, because they have the choice. When a company gives you NO choice about the price by either gouging, speculating, hoarding, whatever, then they should have thier company burned to the ground on live t.v. as a lesson to others. Check out this quote:
"Our competitors are our friends and our customers are our enemies."
Do you know who said it? The former president of Archer Daniels Midland, a major supplier of food and grain, not to mention the bastards behind corn gas and high fructose corn syrup. But I digress...he was recorded saying that by an undercover informant for the FBI. ADM was fined 100 million dollars for price fixing in 1996. When you get billions in free money via subsidies, what's a little 100 million dollar fine? Here's some more companies busted and fined:
British Airways, 2007 - 547 million dollar fine
Roche Holding, 1997 - 500 million dollar fine
Samsung, 2005 - 300 million dollar fine
Infineon, 2005 - 160 million dollar fine
Japan Airlines, 2008 - 110 million dollar fine


A business' entire reason for existence is to make as much profit as they can, and then you want to get on them because they do it well. A business profit is directly correlated to what the market will bare as far as pricing their product. This directly relates to gas, we can talk about all the alternatives we want, but the solution is not here yet, which means the market needs gas. As cost's rise, so will the cost at the pump. However it will only go as high as people are willing to pay. Do we need to be at $4 a gallon? Hell no, are we paying it? You bet. Business 101, if you have a product that you can charge more for and draw more profits and people will pay it, do it.

I'm all for it. Just my opinion :beer:

[duhtroll]

That is perhaps the biggest oversimplification I have ever read.

A corporation doing business in the US does not represent "American Business" any more than the next business does. It is a collective thing, but again, nice try.

Many businesses are not corporations.


Short and to the point works best, unless your real name is Barry Hussein Obama.

Corporations = Business and if the corporation is doing business in America then it's "American Business".

[duhtroll]

And in the case of big oil, they know our country has no other alternative in many areas. There is no public transportation in most of the country. And some public transportation that did exist was purchased and disassembled by oil companies so they have less competition.

We are hostages to our cars when it comes to needing transportation, and oil companies know it very, very well. The first person who says they can live without their vehicle, I challenge them to do just that and let us know how it goes for a year.

EDIT: And I will say again I am not the one complaining about gas prices. I am pointing out that profit always stacks at the top, never at the bottom.


A business' entire reason for existence is to make as much profit as they can, and then you want to get on them because they do it well. A business profit is directly correlated to what the market will bare as far as pricing their product. This directly relates to gas, we can talk about all the alternatives we want, but the solution is not here yet, which means the market needs gas. As cost's rise, so will the cost at the pump. However it will only go as high as people are willing to pay. Do we need to be at $4 a gallon? Hell no, are we paying it? You bet. Business 101, if you have a product that you can charge more for and draw more profits and people will pay it, do it.

Until their is a revolt at the pump or a huge energy crisis to drive prices down, we will never get below $2 a gallon again, why? Because we would be happy just to pay $3 again.

But troll, I would challenge you to think of this, these corporations that you have labeled as evil, if they are over regulated to the point where it drives down profits, that hurts the economy as it drives down stocks and a companies willingness to do business here.

Regulation should probably only be limited to keeping things within the law, beyond that, if a company receives incentives and tax breaks to do business here in America, and that helps control the pricing in the market, I'm all for it. Just my opinion :beer:

[duhtroll]

I challenge the value of the CEO in some cases. I challenge that skill set that makes them more valuable than anyone else, especially since some of them didn't even earn their position but inherited grandpa's position. I can post all sorts of news clips about CEOs leaving companies that were facing financial trouble, yet received a severance package of several if not hundreds of millions of dollars, but I don't have to because you all know what I mean.

That is abuse. I'd say it qualifies as a mistreatment of the company and its employees, as well as its customers.

It happens more and more often lately, or so it seems.

I didn't lump all of corporate America together - matter of fact I am the one trying to NOT do that. I say things like "many" and "often" instead of "all."

Except in one case. Profit always stacks at the top. I'll go with always on that one.

Not liking a job and not having other options are two conditions a lot of people face right now. SOME people can change jobs easily, or even with some difficulty. But many more are "stuck" where they are until there are more options available.

And again, I didn't make a statement that EVERY worker works as hard as the CEO, but I will put good money on the statement that many of them work much harder.

Yeah, unions have their bad points. But they have also done far more good than bad over their history, and they are the only ones representing the "rank and file."




I know we are dyametrically opposed dutroll, and I am certain neither of us have it 100% correct. It is however good to bat this around a bit, and try to learn a little where we can:beer:

[Dragcity]

I am going to make my own diesel fuel out of my old chicken wing oil......

[duhtroll]

Speak for yourself. Where have I said I love government?

I'll wait while you go look.

...

...

...

See, things aren't black and white here. It is possible to assert that government has roles in many things -- necessary roles, and still not agree with everything they do.

This is not a "all or none" discussion.


You forgot to mention Franklin Raines (who headed the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and the millions he made while driving those GOVERNMENT enterprises into bankruptcy at taxpayer's expense. I will never understand why liberals have such selective memories and hate business, love government.

If it bothers you so much I suggest a one way flight to Beijing. Or even better Kim Jong Il or Hugo Chavez's house.:burnout:

[PonyUP]

You know I love you but I have to point out the only flaw in your logic is that not all businesses do it legally. If Smuckers made the best grape jelly in the world and charged 50 bucks a jar, there are people who would pay it. And there are also people who would not, because they have the choice. When a company gives you NO choice about the price by either gouging, speculating, hoarding, whatever, then they should have thier company burned to the ground on live t.v. as a lesson to others. Check out this quote:
"Our competitors are our friends and our customers are our enemies."
Do you know who said it? The former president of Archer Daniels Midland, a major supplier of food and grain, not to mention the bastards behind corn gas and high fructose corn syrup. But I digress...he was recorded saying that by an undercover informant for the FBI. ADM was fined 100 million dollars for price fixing in 1996. When you get billions in free money via subsidies, what's a little 100 million dollar fine? Here's some more companies busted and fined:
British Airways, 2007 - 547 million dollar fine
Roche Holding, 1997 - 500 million dollar fine
Samsung, 2005 - 300 million dollar fine
Infineon, 2005 - 160 million dollar fine
Japan Airlines, 2008 - 110 million dollar fine

That's the key, is that there needs to be enough regulation to make sure they stay within the parameters of the law, but enough freedom to grow their business and maximise profits.

See Gas is a strange thing, because there is collusion by the gas companies as they all raise and lower prices at the same time, and then try and beat each other out by that tenth of a penny.

But you're right it needs to be done legally

[Leadfoot281]

Due to which part? Getting paid to set aside land for "conservation" (getting paid to not plant anything, but leasing the land so someone else can, so basically you get paid twice), getting paid to grow socialized corn (so Ethanol companies get subsidies to produce gas from corn, and you get subsidies to grow it, thereby the taxpayer gets ****ed twice), or are you a lazy, happily unemployed person who has no intention of ever pulling away from the free milk at Lady Liberty's teat?
I'm starting to think getting ****ed as a taxpayer is starting to rival the amount of times I got ****ed while on active duty rock star status. No offense.

I don't who you're talking about but my name came up on the that site you linked to and it says $0.

In fact, I've paid over $1,000,000.00 in taxes over the last 10 years.

In a normal business, if taxes were to go up, I'd just raise my prices. Can't do that though in this business. Farmers are the only ones that pay retail for everything, sell everything at wholesale and pay for transportation both ways.

If corn drops to $2/bu, then my income drops too. Oddly enough, the price for Corn Flakes doesn't change. This is always fun 'cause I get paid once/year. One year I'll make $40k, the next I lose $40k. If you add up the benefits, I made far more money as a PFC in the Army.

The grocery store is the only place where virtually 100% of what they sell was made in the USA... and it doesn't carry the "Union Label" either. Name another commonly found store that can boast that.

Yep, you sure got me figured out. A lazy, shiftless, welfare momma. Yeppers. :rolleyes:

Maybe you ought to lay off that wacky weed. There's been something like 40,000 people killed in Mexico due to all the drug violence in recent years. I can proudy say I have nothing to do with that...can you?

[tbone]

That is perhaps the biggest oversimplification I have ever read.

A corporation doing business in the US does not represent "American Business" any more than the next business does. It is a collective thing, but again, nice try.

Many businesses are not corporations.

So what the hell is your sacred definition of a corporation?

Really, every business is not a corp? Thanks for clearing that up.

[tbone]

Speak for yourself. Where have I said I love government?

I'll wait while you go look.

...

...

...

See, things aren't black and white here. It is possible to assert that government has roles in many things -- necessary roles, and still not agree with everything they do.

This is not a "all or none" discussion.

Your hatred of "corporations" and your love of government is obvious in your rants. It is inferred. Ever heard of the concept of inference?
Corporation haters = liberal = love everything government.
Real tough.

Besides, I don't really read many of your posts. Most are long winded and pointless.

[duhtroll]

and here I am backing everything he just said.

Mark the date.


I don't who you're talking about but my name came up on the that site you linked to and it says $0.

In fact, I've paid over $1,000,000.00 in taxes over the last 10 years.

In a normal business, if taxes were to go up, I'd just raise my prices. Can't do that though in this business. Farmers are the only ones that pay retail for everything, sell everything at wholesale and pay for transportation both ways.

If corn drops to $2/bu, then my income drops too. Oddly enough, the price for Corn Flakes doesn't change. This is always fun 'cause I get paid once/year. One year I'll make $40k, the next I lose $40k. If you add up the benefits, I made far more money as a PFC in the Army.

The grocery store is the only place where virtually 100% of what they sell was made in the USA... and it doesn't carry the "Union Label" either. Name another commonly found store that can boast that.

Yep, you sure got me figured out. A lazy, shiftless, welfare momma. Yeppers. :rolleyes:

Maybe you ought to lay off that wacky weed. There's been something like 40,000 people killed in Mexico due to all the drug violence in recent years. I can proudy say I have nothing to do with that...can you?

[duhtroll]

Look, you don't speak for me, no matter how much you'd like to try.

Don't tell me what I love and hate, because it really makes you look like a tool.

Of course, you getting to tell me my viewpoints is the only way your position has any merit, so I can't blame you for trying. :rolleyes:


Your hatred of "corporations" and your love of government is obvious in your rants. It is inferred. Ever heard of the concept of inference?
Corporation haters = liberal = love everything government.
Real tough.

Besides, I don't really read many of your posts. Most are long winded and pointless.

[duhtroll]

Look in the above post you made. My quote said "many businesses are not corporations."

Then you said



Really, every business is not a corp?

Learn to read.

[CBT]

I don't who you're talking about but my name came up on the that site you linked to and it says $0.

In fact, I've paid over $1,000,000.00 in taxes over the last 10 years.

In a normal business, if taxes were to go up, I'd just raise my prices. Can't do that though in this business. Farmers are the only ones that pay retail for everything, sell everything at wholesale and pay for transportation both ways.

If corn drops to $2/bu, then my income drops too. Oddly enough, the price for Corn Flakes doesn't change. This is always fun 'cause I get paid once/year. One year I'll make $40k, the next I lose $40k. If you add up the benefits, I made far more money as a PFC in the Army.

The grocery store is the only place where virtually 100% of what they sell was made in the USA... and it doesn't carry the "Union Label" either. Name another commonly found store that can boast that.

Yep, you sure got me figured out. A lazy, shiftless, welfare momma. Yeppers. :rolleyes:

Maybe you ought to lay off that wacky weed. There's been something like 40,000 people killed in Mexico due to all the drug violence in recent years. I can proudy say I have nothing to do with that...can you?

You replied to what i posted by saying you guessed you were a welfare addict. I don't know why you said that, but if you are running a business that is constantly losing money and you get subsidies to stay afloat, you are doing it wrong, that is my arguement, my tax dollars should not keep you in business. If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you. I never said I had you figured out, but I think I'm starting to the more you type. What weed has to do with this I have no idea, maybe you should plant that instead?

[tbone]

Look in the above post you made. My quote said "many businesses are not corporations."

Then you said



Learn to read.

Still waiting for your sacred definition of a corporation.
Learn to have a point.

[tbone]

"Every business is not a corporation" and "Many businesses are not corporations" mean the same exact thing when taken in context. Read it again.
Do you know what context means?:confused:

[duhtroll]

OK, you are so completely wrong on this it is not even worth explaining. If you don't know the difference between a business and a corporation, it is not my job to wait while you figure it out.

Go look it up, or at least find someone with hand puppets to explain it to you. I am not your personal wiki.


"Every business is not a corporation" and "Many businesses are not corporations" mean the same exact thing when taken in context. Read it again.
Do you know what context means?:confused:

[SC Cheesehead]

:popcorn::popcorn:

Won't be long now....

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJmw403Huju sHmPMf3WSDSNl8kC4agfa9Pm6CADKq pielgz_t2ML9TkQ (http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/-_Padlock_-.jpg&sa=X&ei=auuUTbeFF4agtwe428GIDA&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Ew&usg=AFQjCNFUfS-q98p06my8740egDp2vQ-qyQ)

[PonyUP]

:popcorn::popcorn:

Won't be long now....

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJmw403Huju sHmPMf3WSDSNl8kC4agfa9Pm6CADKq pielgz_t2ML9TkQ (http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/-_Padlock_-.jpg&sa=X&ei=auuUTbeFF4agtwe428GIDA&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Ew&usg=AFQjCNFUfS-q98p06my8740egDp2vQ-qyQ)

My Egg Timer is ready

24027

[SC Cheesehead]

My Egg Timer is ready

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ9nfMwxJa8

[Bluerauder]

:popcorn::popcorn:

Won't be long now....



:popcorn: :popcorn:

At least the posts are getting shorter and more to the point. ;)

[SC Cheesehead]

:popcorn: :popcorn:

At least the posts are getting shorter and more pointed. ;)


fixed it for you... :rolleyes:

[tbone]

OK, you are so completely wrong on this it is not even worth explaining. If you don't know the difference between a business and a corporation, it is not my job to wait while you figure it out.

Go look it up, or at least find someone with hand puppets to explain it to you. I am not your personal wiki.

I OWN a corporation Einstein. I've been asking you to clarify your point.

[tbone]

Oh yeah, you don't have a point. My bad.

[PonyUP]

Prediction....next response from Troll will close it :popcorn::popcorn:

[duhtroll]

Strange how you can't figure out that some businesses are not incorporated, then.

Someone who doesn't even know that is a failure to their shareholder, and their shareholder is an idiot.


I OWN a corporation Einstein. I've been asking you to clarify your point.

[SC Cheesehead]

:popcorn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MPTbSJH0lE

[CBT]

Damage, Inc. is a great song. :rock:

[SC Cheesehead]

Do you know that rats can't vomit?

[PonyUP]

Do you know that rats can't vomit?

I did, seem to remember reading that in another thread. I just heard of the world's scariest medical condition though, I think Casey has it. This is no BS, it's called microfallisus, or something like that. Basically its a condition where not aroused, the male member actual tucks within the body. At arousal it appears normal. that just scared the hell out of me this morning. Apparently though it is something you are born with, and not something you can catch, whew!!

[CBT]

I did, seem to remember reading that in another thread. I just heard of the world's scariest medical condition though, I think Casey has it. This is no BS, it's called microfallisus, or something like that. Basically its a condition where not aroused, the male member actual tucks within the body. At arousal it appears normal. that just scared the hell out of me this morning. Apparently though it is something you are born with, and not something you can catch, whew!!

Is that all you think about, catching dicks? KA-POW! I'll just go ahead and ban myself, see you's in Kentucky, you're a beautiful audience!! :D

[PonyUP]

Is that all you think about, catching dicks? KA-POW! I'll just go ahead and ban myself, see you's in Kentucky, you're a beautiful audience!! :D

I know how you get after a few beers, and I was scared that *****e was contageous :beer:

[Dragcity]

So, this horse walks into a bar and orders a drink.......

[LIGHTNIN1]

:popcorn::popcorn:

IBTL

[Leadfoot281]

He said he guesses he's a welfare addict, I asked how so. I don't dis-like him or farmers, I dis-like my tax dollars propping up an industry again and again and again for billions of dollars a year. Outsourcing makes things cheaper, can't we outsource farming?

Yep, Let's outsource farming. I wonder what milk imported from Bangladesh tastes like poured over a bowl of French made Corn flakes? Can't imagine it would smell very good either. :rolleyes: I doubt exporting 30 million jobs will do us much good from a national security or economic stand point either.

With the money they'll earn from this maybe they'll buy a few (now) worthless states like Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, Missouri, ect...

If you think foreign dependance on oil is bad, wait 'til we buy our food from them. Chinese Frosted Flakes? Ha! Frosted in Lead paint maybe... Hell, their freakin cat food isn't safe enough for cats!

Honestly, I don't even want to debate farming with someone this clueless. It's a waste of pixels.

Let me sum up a few things.

1. If you send money to Arabia, you'll get lots of You-Tube vids of idiotic teens wrecking spendy cars.

2. If you give money to "Welfare Mommas" you'll get a request for more money...and few more welfare mommas.

3. If you send a dollar to a farmer, you'll get that dollar back. That dollar is spent locally on everything from tractors, trucks, food,

I don't like handouts more than anyone. Maybe that's why I'm one of the 30% of Minnesotans that didn't take any. I lost $30,000 in corn due to a flood a few years ago. Never took a dime for it. I earned $299.17 last year and have the tax records to prove it.

A few years ago when Minnesota (the only state stupid enough to vote against Reagon twice) got drunk and elected that half-witted, hair-brained, "9-11 truther" libtard "Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, we all received income tax rebates of $700. I sent mine to charity.

Government dependance is toxic and can even be fatal. When Bush sent out the first "stimulus" checks, I also donated that one to charity.

Unlike some people who always vote for the crook that promises them the most money, I can't be bought. I am not for sale. It don't matter how much I may be struggling.

When Obama promised "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to destroy America by converting it over to a Marxist regime, I immediately sent Juan McCain a check for (a lot).

I think he did send me an Obama Tire pressure gauge though. At the time, that was his energy policy. Actually, isn't that still Resident Obamas strategy?

Hell, I could have taken this place over back in 1990. My Dad promised me a new truck just to stay home and farm. I joined the Army (during a war) because I love this country more than myself. Never did get the truck BTW.

Calling me, my friends, my family, and my peers "worse than welfare mommas" is possibly the greatest insult I've ever heard.

The nature of farming is this; There is not one single farmer in the world, that won't make more money by just quitting and throwing their savings into the bank. Farming is a hobby. Period. It's like this world-wide and we should all be gratefull that there are people stupid enough to do it.

Don't believe me? Go to the bank and ask for $5,000,000.00. Tell them you're going farming. Explain to them that you will be paid once/year and most years you will see opperating loses but that the yearlly average will be close to $20,000. Get the loan? Great...well, let's pretend you did.

Next buy a 1,000 acres and $700,000 worth of used equiptment. Be prepared to work 7 days/week. Understand that if you get injured you will die alone in the middle of a 120 acre feild because there is no help available...or you will be discovered by a family member, possibly torn to shreds like my friend Travis from the 3rd grade. (the biggest peice of him they found was a finger). Maybe you'll get lucky and be crushed under a wagon like my sisters fiance Mark.

If you are right handed, you will lose your hearing in your right ear. South paws will lose hearing in the their left ear. (if you know why, let me know). Andy, you might get this one. I doubt CBT will though.

I still remember that day in 2nd grade when my friend Brent told the class for "show and tell" that his Dad was crushed under a tractor and died. Even the teacher cried.

A few years later my best friend Jim lost both thumbs in a PTO shaft.

Yep, we're all a bunch of money whores that are trying to destroy America. A bunch on-patriotic, welfare mommas that don't do anything for anyone else.

Enjoy your f'n supper.

[PonyUP]

The Human Head weighs 8lbs




IBTL:)

[guspech750]

White Sox won today. 15-10. They beat the Indians!! White Sox are on a hot streak!! They are 1-0!!

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[SC Cheesehead]

An average bowel movement is around 1.5 lbs. Anything over 2 lbs is considered large, and one reaching 3 lbs is extremely rare.

[CBT]

I never called you a welfare addict, you did. AGAIN, I don't care what you do for a living as long as I don't have to support you. If I'm not supporting you, then I don't care. Write a 7 page response this time so I can say the same thing. AGAIN.



Yep, Let's outsource farming. I wonder what milk imported from Bangladesh tastes like poured over a bowl of French made Corn flakes? Can't imagine it would smell very good either. :rolleyes: I doubt exporting 30 million jobs will do us much good from a national security or economic stand point either.

With the money they'll earn from this maybe they'll buy a few (now) worthless states like Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, Missouri, ect...

If you think foreign dependance on oil is bad, wait 'til we buy our food from them. Chinese Frosted Flakes? Ha! Frosted in Lead paint maybe... Hell, their freakin cat food isn't safe enough for cats!

Honestly, I don't even want to debate farming with someone this clueless. It's a waste of pixels.

Let me sum up a few things.

1. If you send money to Arabia, you'll get lots of You-Tube vids of idiotic teens wrecking spendy cars.

2. If you give money to "Welfare Mommas" you'll get a request for more money...and few more welfare mommas.

3. If you send a dollar to a farmer, you'll get that dollar back. That dollar is spent locally on everything from tractors, trucks, food,

I don't like handouts more than anyone. Maybe that's why I'm one of the 30% of Minnesotans that didn't take any. I lost $30,000 in corn due to a flood a few years ago. Never took a dime for it. I earned $299.17 last year and have the tax records to prove it.

A few years ago when Minnesota (the only state stupid enough to vote against Reagon twice) got drunk and elected that half-witted, hair-brained, "9-11 truther" libtard "Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, we all received income tax rebates of $700. I sent mine to charity.

Government dependance is toxic and can even be fatal. When Bush sent out the first "stimulus" checks, I also donated that one to charity.

Unlike some people who always vote for the crook that promises them the most money, I can't be bought. I am not for sale. It don't matter how much I may be struggling.

When Obama promised "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to destroy America by converting it over to a Marxist regime, I immediately sent Juan McCain a check for (a lot).

I think he did send me an Obama Tire pressure gauge though. At the time, that was his energy policy. Actually, isn't that still Resident Obamas strategy?

Hell, I could have taken this place over back in 1990. My Dad promised me a new truck just to stay home and farm. I joined the Army (during a war) because I love this country more than myself. Never did get the truck BTW.

Calling me, my friends, my family, and my peers "worse than welfare mommas" is possibly the greatest insult I've ever heard.

The nature of farming is this; There is not one single farmer in the world, that won't make more money by just quitting and throwing their savings into the bank. Farming is a hobby. Period. It's like this world-wide and we should all be gratefull that there are people stupid enough to do it.

Don't believe me? Go to the bank and ask for $5,000,000.00. Tell them you're going farming. Explain to them that you will be paid once/year and most years you will see opperating loses but that the yearlly average will be close to $20,000. Get the loan? Great...well, let's pretend you did.

Next buy a 1,000 acres and $700,000 worth of used equiptment. Be prepared to work 7 days/week. Understand that if you get injured you will die alone in the middle of a 120 acre feild because there is no help available...or you will be discovered by a family member, possibly torn to shreds like my friend Travis from the 3rd grade. (the biggest peice of him they found was a finger). Maybe you'll get lucky and be crushed under a wagon like my sisters fiance Mark.

If you are right handed, you will lose your hearing in your right ear. South paws will lose hearing in the their left ear. (if you know why, let me know). Andy, you might get this one. I doubt CBT will though.

I still remember that day in 2nd grade when my friend Brent told the class for "show and tell" that his Dad was crushed under a tractor and died. Even the teacher cried.

A few years later my best friend Jim lost both thumbs in a PTO shaft.

Yep, we're all a bunch of money whores that are trying to destroy America. A bunch on-patriotic, welfare mommas that don't do anything for anyone else.

Enjoy your f'n supper.

[duhtroll]

...But I have to give Transocean credit, they DID cut the part of the bonuses related to safety by a full ONE-THIRD!

But hey, what I have learned from this thread is that profit is the goal of every business, so if they can make money they should be allowed to.

I suppose that includes Transocean/BP/Halliburton in this case, so no one should be upset, right?

Let's focus on the real problem with our country - those middle class government workers! :lol: I'm sure we can find examples of them getting hundreds of thousands in bonuses while killing people in the process, right?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_bi_ge/us_transocean_executive_compen sation

Transocean gives safety bonuses despite deaths



By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Business Writer – Sat Apr 2, 4:26 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO – Transocean Ltd. gave its top executives bonuses for achieving the "best year in safety performance in our company's history" — despite the explosion of its oil rig that killed 11 people and spilled 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The company said in a regulatory filing that its most senior managers were given two thirds of their total possible safety bonus.
Transocean noted "the tragic loss of life" in the Gulf when the rig operated by BP PLC exploded last April. But it said the company still had an "exemplary" safety record because it met or exceeded certain internal safety targets concerning the frequency and severity of its accidents, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.
Safety accounts for a quarter of the executives' total cash bonuses. The total bonus for CEO Steve Newman last year was $374,062.
According to calculations by The Associated Press, the total value the company assigned to Newman's compensation package was $5.8 million.
That figure includes an $850,000 base salary — a 34 percent increase from the prior year; perquisites of $622,057, which includes housing and vacation allowances, among other things; and the $374,062 bonus. Also included in the figure are stock options valued at $1.9 million and deferred shares valued at $2 million when those awards were granted in March 2010.
Transocean's Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion on April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and set off the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
A commission appointed by President Barack Obama earlier this year said the explosion was caused by a series of time and money-saving decisions by Transocean, BP and oil services company Halliburton Inc. that created an unacceptable amount of risk.
In the regulatory filing, the company said its bonuses were appropriate as a way to recognize its executives' efforts in "significantly improving the company's safety record" and implementing a new internal planning system.
Those efforts have "enabled the company to maintain its financial flexibility during a challenging period, while, at the same time, positioning the company for sustained growth in the future."
The Associated Press formula calculates an executive's total compensation during the last fiscal year by adding salary, bonuses, perks, above-market interest the company pays on deferred compensation and the estimated value of stock and stock options awarded during the year. The AP formula does not count changes in the present value of pension benefits. That makes the AP total slightly different in most cases from the total reported by companies to the SEC.
The value that a company assigned to an executive's stock and option awards for 2010 was the present value of what the company expected the awards to be worth to the executive over time. Companies use one of several formulas to calculate that value. However, the number is just an estimate, and what an executive ultimately receives will depend on the performance of the company's stock in the years after the awards are granted. Most stock compensation programs require an executive to wait a specified amount of time to receive shares or exercise options.

[SC Cheesehead]

so if they can make money they should be allowed to.[/B]

So who do you suggest we designate to the role of "profit police" kommrade...? :rolleyes:

[GAMike]

Sure there are plenty of companies who's conduct is dispicable, but there are plenty who are very good corporate citizens as well...... Just like within companies, there are high performing employees, and ones who just barely make it through the day.

The only way you can as a business, "Be all you can Be"........ Is to be profitable........... You cannot make a positive impact as a for profit business, if you don't make money.

Profit affords a company-

1. The option of providing good benefits for their employees and invest in their future development..... The companies that don't usually lag in the talent acquisition dept., and by default don't make as much profit. (strange how that works)

2. The ability to sponsor worthy causes. Sure, some of this money gets written off, but if they were not making a profit, charities that count on them would suffer.

3. With profit comes the expectation by the shareholders of even more profit.......... This at some point takes more tax paying employees, as leading companies are pretty precise about additions to staff, and productivity per employee ratio's, they understand the dynamics of additions to staff for the role they hire for.......

----It also means that the company would need to make additional purchases or investments to sustain/grow the business/ensure the success of the employees they select. If a company hires they also provide the tools of the trade in alot of cases ("Trades" are the only work envirornments I can think of where you bring in your own tools).

Sorry, but profit is not a dirty word. We do not live in Utopia. We live in a competitive world. Right or wrong, that is the way it is, and in this world the United States of America is seated at the head of the table (some in government are trying to change this despite the lives of all the people in our history who fought for our country to play this role in the world, Why" I do not know....) because our citizens who came before us understood that it takes innovation, industrial might, and money to assert the moral authority most of, the rest of the world looks to us for........

To offer reasoned rhetoric and polite argument that America should be any different, and that the people who risk wealth in search of profit, should be vilified is just plain absurd.

Sure I don't like it when GE does not pay its fair share of taxes, that is indefensible, but if you look at it from the standpoint that they employe some 287,000 people who do, the U.S. would be in alot worse shape if those salaries and their taxes did not exist. A company like GE subscribes to 1 thru 4 above. Its how they became so big and changed lives for people inside and outside their company.

None of it would be possible without profit. With profit comes "influence", but that is for another time, and my guess its where most folks who rail against Corp. America have the majority of their issues.

[rayjay]

So who do you suggest we designate to the role of "profit police" kommrade...? :rolleyes:

+1 Rex, A company not being in business to make money/profit makes no sense. As you pointed out in a round about way this idea is from a failed system. Jeesh, even the ChiComms have figured that one out. Look at the PRK, other than possibly weapons they are still in the 1950s or worse.

[SC Cheesehead]

+1 Rex, A company not being in business to make money/profit makes no sense. As you pointed out in a round about way this idea is from a failed system. Jeesh, even the ChiComms have figured that one out. Look at the PRK, other than possibly weapons they are still in the 1950s or worse.

You got my point, Ray.

A government-controlled centrally managed economy will not work, as proven time and time again.

Free markets and private enterprise do.

[PonyUP]

...But I have to give Transocean credit, they DID cut the part of the bonuses related to safety by a full ONE-THIRD!

But hey, what I have learned from this thread is that profit is the goal of every business, so if they can make money they should be allowed to.

I suppose that includes Transocean/BP/Halliburton in this case, so no one should be upset, right?

Let's focus on the real problem with our country - those middle class government workers! :lol: I'm sure we can find examples of them getting hundreds of thousands in bonuses while killing people in the process, right?

.


So you don't think the main goal of a business should be make profit? There are crooked companies out there and those that leverage relationships to get kickbacks (Haliburton comes to mind) But the minute you start regulating a companies ability to make profits, you lose the free capitalism our country was built on. It sounds like, at least how I interpret your postings so I may be wrong, that you would prefer a more even level economy where wages are split among citizens, goods are controlled and levied and nobody should be able to get ahead of anyone else.

How did that work out for the Soviet Union?

[SC Cheesehead]

So you don't think the main goal of a business should be make profit? There are crooked companies out there and those that leverage relationships to get kickbacks (Haliburton comes to mind) But the minute you start regulating a companies ability to make profits, you lose the free capitalism our country was built on. It sounds like, at least how I interpret your postings so I may be wrong, that you would prefer a more even level economy where wages are split among citizens, goods are controlled and levied and nobody should be able to get ahead of anyone else.

How did that work out for the Soviet Union?

Four words: Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged.

April 15th at a theater near you.

[duhtroll]

So far I have not seen one single comment even addressing the article posted. You took my comment about profits out of context AND made it seem like I don't think businesses should profit. Nowhere have I said that, but thanks for the attempt at misdirection.

These people (Transocean execs and those others listed) have been paid bonuses for safety, when people have died and how many millions of gallons of oil have been spilled/lost?

Is anyone on this board seriously saying that those managers deserve these bonuses?

I have however seen several comments similar to "a few bad corporate managers do not represent the whole lot."

Yet when it comes to government/public employees you guys use the exact same types of examples of a few to represent the many to rationalize an attack on them.

See my point? What is good for one is good for another.

This company (and other contributors) has KILLED people and destroyed areas of the planet through their negligence, and people are supporting their ability to pay their execs bonuses for safety?

Yeah, lets make this about my views on profit instead, as if it mattered. :rolleyes:

[PonyUP]

So far I have not seen one single comment even addressing the article posted. You took my comment about profits out of context AND made it seem like I don't think businesses should profit. Nowhere have I said that, but thanks for the attempt at misdirection.

These people (Transocean execs and those others listed) have been paid bonuses for safety, when people have died and how many millions of gallons of oil have been spilled/lost?

Is anyone on this board seriously saying that those managers deserve these bonuses?

I have however seen several comments similar to "a few bad corporate managers do not represent the whole lot."

Yet when it comes to government/public employees you guys use the exact same types of examples of a few to represent the many to rationalize an attack on them.

See my point? What is good for one is good for another.

This company (and other contributors) has KILLED people and destroyed areas of the planet through their negligence, and people are supporting their ability to pay their execs bonuses for safety?

Yeah, lets make this about my views on profit instead, as if it mattered. :rolleyes:

So instead let's just overregulate every oil company, increase there cost of doing business, which will only raise only prices further, hence raising the price of gasoline even higher. Good plan

Most major corporations have these incredible incentives, and yes in many cases I am against them, so your solution would be for the government to regulate it? Well that's worked real well considering they have only had a balanced budget once in the last twenty years and are able to vote themselves their own raises and other compensation, not to mention the money in their campaign warchests.

When a company has a terrible safety record, or has a major spill, you fine them A LOT, enough to clean up the mess and enough to pay for a portion of the government budget. I submit that thats where the real crime is, when these spills happen, we don't enforce harsh enough penalties. Why?

Just how do you think politicians get elected? ;)

[kernie]

So far I have not seen one single comment even addressing the article posted. You took my comment about profits out of context AND made it seem like I don't think businesses should profit. Nowhere have I said that, but thanks for the attempt at misdirection.

These people (Transocean execs and those others listed) have been paid bonuses for safety, when people have died and how many millions of gallons of oil have been spilled/lost?

Is anyone on this board seriously saying that those managers deserve these bonuses?

I have however seen several comments similar to "a few bad corporate managers do not represent the whole lot."

Yet when it comes to government/public employees you guys use the exact same types of examples of a few to represent the many to rationalize an attack on them.

See my point? What is good for one is good for another.

This company (and other contributors) has KILLED people and destroyed areas of the planet through their negligence, and people are supporting their ability to pay their execs bonuses for safety?

Yeah, lets make this about my views on profit instead, as if it mattered. :rolleyes:

Ha! It's amazing how fast you can become a commie around here, lol.

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

So far I have not seen one single comment even addressing the article posted. You took my comment about profits out of context AND made it seem like I don't think businesses should profit. Nowhere have I said that, but thanks for the attempt at misdirection.

These people (Transocean execs and those others listed) have been paid bonuses for safety, when people have died and how many millions of gallons of oil have been spilled/lost?

Is anyone on this board seriously saying that those managers deserve these bonuses?

I have however seen several comments similar to "a few bad corporate managers do not represent the whole lot."

Yet when it comes to government/public employees you guys use the exact same types of examples of a few to represent the many to rationalize an attack on them.

See my point? What is good for one is good for another.

This company (and other contributors) has KILLED people and destroyed areas of the planet through their negligence, and people are supporting their ability to pay their execs bonuses for safety?

Yeah, lets make this about my views on profit instead, as if it mattered. :rolleyes:

Hard to see your points sometimes, the sarcasm and "in your face" attitude tends to get in the way....;)

[duhtroll]

It doesn't matter one whit what I think - I am asking you guys if you think people who allow other people to die should be getting safety bonuses.

I'm also asking you to apply the same criteria of selection to those on the "other" side.

That being...

A few bad ___________________ (fill in the blank) is not a reason go about proclaiming all __________________ (same answer) are all evil or bad, whatever.

This premise is applied here in defense of this corporation (well, 3 corporations) but almost never to those whom people on this board would criticize.

That was the whole point of posting the article here. I just wanted to see if any of you free-market guys would criticize the company, or if you would dogpile me instead. Looks like I have my answer.

"Lets do anything to avoid regulation" is what I am reading, so I guess a few deaths here and there are OK. I just want to be sure.





Hard to see your points sometimes, the sarcasm and "in your face" attitude tends to get in the way....;)

[PonyUP]

It doesn't matter one whit what I think - I am asking you guys if you think people who allow other people to die should be getting safety bonuses.

I'm also asking you to apply the same criteria of selection to those on the "other" side.

That being...

A few bad ___________________ (fill in the blank) is not a reason go about proclaiming all __________________ (same answer) are all evil or bad, whatever.

This premise is applied here in defense of this corporation (well, 3 corporations) but almost never to those whom people on this board would criticize.

That was the whole point of posting the article here. I just wanted to see if any of you free-market guys would criticize the company, or if you would dogpile me instead. Looks like I have my answer.

"Lets do anything to avoid regulation" is what I am reading, so I guess a few deaths here and there are OK. I just want to be sure.

I will apply that logic to all sides, you can't blame the actions of a few bad apples for the whole conglomerate, Ihave always said that and will always say that. This company giving safety bonus when their record does not support that is deplorable.

However what I am saying is that governement mandates and over regulation is not the answer. In addition, as a company, they can spend their profits however they would like, if they want to do that on crappy bonuses, it's their money and they can do that. Just because we don't like it is not an answer.

Because if it's opinions that count, as we have seen on this board, there would be no teachers, no unions, no democrats, no liberals and the list goes on and on.

If it's okay for the governement to overregulate one industry to prevent safety bonuses, where does it stop, maybe the governement doesn't believe I deserve a bonus of 25% of my salary for reaching company benchmarks, where is the line drawn?

[tbone]

[QUOTE=duhtroll;1028830]Strange how you can't figure out that some businesses are not incorporated, then.
QUOTE]

Strange how I ask you for your personal definition of a corporation doing business in America, and you consistently dodge the question by asserting that I don't know what a corporation is. If you don't know the answer to a simple question, I suggest you just say so.:lol::bs:

[duhtroll]

Wow. Still on this?

Why not go back and read and figure out that I have already answered your question?

Nah.


[QUOTE=duhtroll;1028830]Strange how you can't figure out that some businesses are not incorporated, then.
QUOTE]

Strange how I ask you for your personal definition of a corporation doing business in America, and you consistently dodge the question by asserting that I don't know what a corporation is. If you don't know the answer to a simple question, I suggest you just say so.:lol::bs:

[duhtroll]

If it's okay for the governement to overregulate one industry to prevent safety bonuses, where does it stop, maybe the governement doesn't believe I deserve a bonus of 25% of my salary for reaching company benchmarks, where is the line drawn?

I am not the person to answer that, but I can say that maybe preventing death would be a good start. :D

[PonyUP]

I am not the person to answer that, but I can say that maybe preventing death would be a good start. :D


:lol::lol:, Well if that's the only criteria, then I'm good to go

[SC Cheesehead]

It doesn't matter one whit what I think - I am asking you guys if you think people who allow other people to die should be getting safety bonuses.

I'm also asking you to apply the same criteria of selection to those on the "other" side.

That being...

A few bad ___________________ (fill in the blank) is not a reason go about proclaiming all __________________ (same answer) are all evil or bad, whatever.

This premise is applied here in defense of this corporation (well, 3 corporations) but almost never to those whom people on this board would criticize.

That was the whole point of posting the article here. I just wanted to see if any of you free-market guys would criticize the company, or if you would dogpile me instead. Looks like I have my answer.

"Lets do anything to avoid regulation" is what I am reading, so I guess a few deaths here and there are OK. I just want to be sure.

So the inference is that the deaths were intended actions?

I worked for 8 months on the oil spill clean up and saw a side to the issue that few others have. To broad brush the parties involved as having cavalier attitudes toward what happened is way off base. Were mistakes made that lead to the disaster? Absolutely. Was there intent to cause injury, fatalities, and environmental damage? Absolutely not. A number of things came together to create the "perfect storm" for this disaster to occur. To me, the key point is learning from this so it doesn't happen again.

[tbone]

[QUOTE=duhtroll;1029855]Wow. Still on this?

Why not go back and read and figure out that I have already answered your question?

Nah.[QUOTE=duhtroll;1029855]

I was away, on business, over the weekend. Why don't you enlighten all of us on where and when you answered my very simple question. Cut and paste. Only takes a second.:bs:

[duhtroll]

Yes, actually they were. If you look at the safety reports, they cut corners on several things that could have prevented the deaths.

The result wasn't intended, but the actions most certainly were.

This whole issue is not about profit. It is about bonuses for safety.

All they really had to do was pay them under some other heading or account, but no, they decided they are entitled.


So the inference is that the deaths were intended actions?

I worked for 8 months on the oil spill clean up and saw a side to the issue that few others have. To broad brush the parties involved as having cavalier attitudes toward what happened is way off base. Were mistakes made that lead to the disaster? Absolutely. Was there intent to cause injury, fatalities, and environmental damage? Absolutely not. A number of things came together to create the "perfect storm" for this disaster to occur. To me, the key point is learning from this so it doesn't happen again.

[duhtroll]

Where in the membership agreement for MM.net did I agree to be your monkey?

Go read for yourself, or as I said before, find someone to read it to you.

I worked all weekend too, BTW, Mr. Haughty.




I was away, on business, over the weekend. Why don't you enlighten all of us on where and when you answered my very simple question. Cut and paste. Only takes a second.:bs:

[SC Cheesehead]

Where in the membership agreement for MM.net did I agree to be your monkey?

Go read for yourself, or as I said before, find someone to read it to you.

I worked all weekend too, BTW, Mr. Haughty.

I will say one thing for you, troll, you're nothing, if not consistent... ;)

[tbone]

Where in the membership agreement for MM.net did I agree to be your monkey?

Go read for yourself, or as I said before, find someone to read it to you.

I worked all weekend too, BTW, Mr. Haughty.

:bs::beer::lol::flamer:
Sad that you can't prove your point, or even make one.

[CBT]

.....so in closing b.t.l., if MY income is YOUR sole sorce of income, I have a huge problem with that.

[SC Cheesehead]

.....so in closing b.t.l., if MY income is YOUR sole sorce of income, I have a huge problem with that.


On the other hand, if I could get someone to take YOUR income and add it to MY income,
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:2mCKE5J7KaHqqM::w ww.biggestloserresort.com/uploads/images/logo-life-is-good.gif&t=1&h=56&w=98&usg=__IFKKA50LNSrFE3K0nT9xZVd2 k5w= (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.biggestloserresort.com/uploads/images/logo-life-is-good.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.biggestloserresort.com/resorts/the-pro-shop/&h=100&w=175&sz=6&tbnid=2mCKE5J7KaHqqM:&tbnh=57&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlife%2Bis%2Bgood% 2Blogo&zoom=1&q=life+is+good+logo&hl=en&usg=__DcfFM8p4DT-kxSyFwXSDHBW0gKY=&sa=X&ei=N-iZTajWHua50QG0o5zuCw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwBA)

I can ALWAYS use some extra bucks...

[CBT]

Grrrrr! Smack yerself. :rolleyes:



On the other hand, if I could get someone to take YOUR income and add it to MY income,
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:2mCKE5J7KaHqqM::w ww.biggestloserresort.com/uploads/images/logo-life-is-good.gif&t=1&h=56&w=98&usg=__IFKKA50LNSrFE3K0nT9xZVd2 k5w= (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.biggestloserresort.com/uploads/images/logo-life-is-good.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.biggestloserresort.com/resorts/the-pro-shop/&h=100&w=175&sz=6&tbnid=2mCKE5J7KaHqqM:&tbnh=57&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlife%2Bis%2Bgood% 2Blogo&zoom=1&q=life+is+good+logo&hl=en&usg=__DcfFM8p4DT-kxSyFwXSDHBW0gKY=&sa=X&ei=N-iZTajWHua50QG0o5zuCw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwBA)

I can ALWAYS use some extra bucks...

[SC Cheesehead]

Grrrrr! Smack yerself. :rolleyes:

Well, just sayin...

[duhtroll]

I'll let our armed forces, police and firefighters know.


.....so in closing b.t.l., if MY income is YOUR sole sorce of income, I have a huge problem with that.

[duhtroll]

You know, I saw this post before you had words on it - just the emoticons.

Took you that long just to come up with this below vvvvv?

You're no fun anymore.


:bs::beer::lol::flamer:
Sad that you can't prove your point, or even make one.

[tbone]

You know, I saw this post before you had words on it - just the emoticons.

Took you that long just to come up with this below vvvvv?

You're no fun anymore.

I was debating on telling you how I really feel about you.

[SC Cheesehead]

You know, I saw this post before you had words on it - just the emoticons.

Took you that long just to come up with this below vvvvv?

You're no fun anymore.


I was debating on telling you how I really feel about you.


Man, you can just FEEL the love...:lovies2:

[ctrlraven]

Interesting.... there is a few people debating back and forth and then you got the shoutbox post whores whoring it up in here as well.

duhtroll, I just read every post in the thread and I concur.

[duhtroll]

I was just gonna ignore this, but I have to ask...

Debating with whom??




I was debating on telling you how I really feel about you.

[tbone]

Wow, good one. Really witty. You must have thought long and hard to come up with that.