War profiteering during the Bush Presidency

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I think all that money would have been better spent on the American people, rather than shoveling it in huge quantities into friends of the administrations pockets.

Well, we can see what $2Tr spent in less than a year, via TARP, Omnibus, and Stimulus has accomplished. Two times the amount allocated on the war, in less than an 1/8th the time. Talk about money's worth? We have nationalization of banks, two car companies, the government now owns 80% of the mortgages now that they own Freddie and Fannie...that's a horrific track record, no matter how you look at it.

The fallacy of that arguement is very simple, had George not taken us to Iraq for all thos WMD( but really to outdo daddy) and made other ill advised voodoodoo economic decisions that increased the national debt 6 Trillion, our economy would never have crashed so badly. When you look at the national debt since 1980 I think we can put to rest the soundness of Reagonomics and those who have continued to practice it

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think all that money would have been better spent on the American people, rather than shoveling it in huge quantities into friends of the administrations pockets.

Well, we can see what $2Tr spent in less than a year, via TARP, Omnibus, and Stimulus has accomplished. Two times the amount allocated on the war, in less than an 1/8th the time. Talk about money's worth? We have nationalization of banks, two car companies, the government now owns 80% of the mortgages now that they own Freddie and Fannie...that's a horrific track record, no matter how you look at it.

The fallacy of that arguement is very simple, had George not taken us to Iraq for all thos WMD( but really to outdo daddy) and made other ill advised voodoodoo economic decisions that increased the national debt 6 Trillion, our economy would never have crashed so badly. When you look at the national debt since 1980 I think we can put to rest the soundness of Reagonomics and those who have continued to practice it

The numbers don't add up Jeane. The war has cost about $125B/year over the past eight years (assuming $1Tr spent to date). Given the size of the federal budget alone, never mind actual federal spending, the war is not the problem.

The Congressional spending spree during President Bush's administration should be examined quite a bit further. Entitlements are what is spending this country into the abyss. HHS, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security all outpace defense. Combined, it's more than triple defense. Labor was doubled for FY09.

You can keep looking the other way, but the war had nothing to do with the banks, AIG, or Fannie and Freddie.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think all that money would have been better spent on the American people, rather than shoveling it in huge quantities into friends of the administrations pockets.

Well, we can see what $2Tr spent in less than a year, via TARP, Omnibus, and Stimulus has accomplished. Two times the amount allocated on the war, in less than an 1/8th the time. Talk about money's worth? We have nationalization of banks, two car companies, the government now owns 80% of the mortgages now that they own Freddie and Fannie...that's a horrific track record, no matter how you look at it.

The fallacy of that arguement is very simple, had George not taken us to Iraq for all thos WMD( but really to outdo daddy) and made other ill advised voodoodoo economic decisions that increased the national debt 6 Trillion, our economy would never have crashed so badly. When you look at the national debt since 1980 I think we can put to rest the soundness of Reagonomics and those who have continued to practice it

The numbers don't add up Jeane. The war has cost about $125B/year over the past eight years (assuming $1Tr spent to date). Given the size of the federal budget alone, never mind actual federal spending, the war is not the problem.

The Congressional spending spree during President Bush's administration should be examined quite a bit further. Entitlements are what is spending this country into the abyss. HHS, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security all outpace defense. Combined, it's more than triple defense. Labor was doubled for FY09.

You can keep looking the other way, but the war had nothing to do with the banks, AIG, or Fannie and Freddie.

You are right.. the war was just part of the problem.. but no war.... and you geta whole lot more money not spent... or trasnferred to the military industrial complex. I know you guys always want to gut the other part of the pie.. so called entitlements. Uh... a lot of those people WORKED for those entitlements. I would rather spend those billions of dollars on the american people for education and to make this a better country than take the same money and give it to a few corporations and campaign contributors who are well connected.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I offered numbers, they are correct.

Yes, you offered numbers without any indication of where they came from. Don't get all arrogant because you were too lazy to mention or link to a source in the post to which I first responded.

Quote

I'm not comparing operating margins to effective interest rates. Your prerogative. I'm comparing gross revenue to net profit (after taxes, charges...bottom line), …

Right, because you're more interested in making Exxon Mobil look like a benevolent company who barely makes a profit than you are in looking at their financials objectively. Your prerogative.

Quote

As for the subsidies you mentioned, you do bring up a good point, I didn't really address your argument there, I transitioned to something else. In the context of the "subsidies" you mentioned, they aren't all that dramatic.

If you consider the cost of OEF and OIF to be "not all that dramatic," then you're metric is unusual to say the least.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[chuckakers 426]

And of course now that Obama is in the Oval Office, this will all stop now.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I offered numbers, they are correct.

Yes, you offered numbers without any indication of where they came from. Don't get all arrogant because you were too lazy to mention or link to a source in the post to which I first responded.

It wasn't I that copped out with something akin to, "well, I'd have to see the numbers, and verify the thingamajiggers and interest earned before tax because the blah blah yada yada..." You didn't dispute them, and you still haven't told me where I am incorrect in my assessment of their financial statement.

Quote

Quote

I'm not comparing operating margins to effective interest rates. Your prerogative. I'm comparing gross revenue to net profit (after taxes, charges...bottom line), …

Right, because you're more interested in making Exxon Mobil look like a benevolent company who barely makes a profit than you are in looking at their financials objectively. Your prerogative.

An operating margin is somebody's soft way of measuring the "health" of the company in its operations before meaningful expenses like...taxes, interest on debt. It's not what's left at the end of the day. Yes, I will stick with the bottom line.

Quote

Quote

As for the subsidies you mentioned, you do bring up a good point, I didn't really address your argument there, I transitioned to something else. In the context of the "subsidies" you mentioned, they aren't all that dramatic.

If you consider the cost of OEF and OIF to be "not all that dramatic," then you're metric is unusual to say the least.

I didn't say the cost of OEF and OIF, your non-measurable "subsidies" are nowhere near those figures. The cost of the war is not equal to the subsidy to an industry. Odd that you didn't try to offer one though. You also conveniently left out the part where oil companies have to buy the oil to be refined, as that eats up about half of the gross receipts, before any other expenses. It's all on Page 38 of ExxonMobil's 2008 Annual Report. I'm guessing you haven't bothered to even look it up.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And of course now that Obama is in the Oval Office, this will all stop now.

I am good with just prosecuting those who committed and permitted the fraud, corruption and graft that the Bush administration allowed.

Crooks like that belong in Federal POUND EM IN THE ASS prison, not attending functions at the local country club.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

And of course now that Obama is in the Oval Office, this will all stop now.

I am good with just prosecuting those who committed and permitted the fraud, corruption and graft that the Bush administration allowed.

Crooks like that belong in Federal POUND EM IN THE ASS prison, not attending functions at the local country club.

The problem is that there is just as much corruption now. It just involves different people with different agendas. Do you think those people should be in prison too?

Let's be sure to see the bad stuff in the people we like as much as we do in the people we hate. Otherwise, you are just a partison hack.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And of course now that Obama is in the Oval Office, this will all stop now.

I am good with just prosecuting those who committed and permitted the fraud, corruption and graft that the Bush administration allowed.

Crooks like that belong in Federal POUND EM IN THE ASS prison, not attending functions at the local country club.

The problem is that there is just as much corruption now. It just involves different people with different agendas. Do you think those people should be in prison too?

Let's be sure to see the bad stuff in the people we like as much as we do in the people we hate. Otherwise, you are just a partison hack.

You only see what you want to see. SOOOO that leads me to believe you are what????????


Personally.. I don't give a rats ass who it is.. R or D or I.. if you are breaking the law.. and ripping off the American Taxpayer... you need to go visit BUBBA and be his tight little bitch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You didn't dispute them, and you still haven't told me where I am incorrect in my assessment of their financial statement.

Right. I pointed out that you didn't provide sufficient data to support your assertion in that post and explained what necessary data was missing.

Quote

An operating margin is somebody's soft way of measuring the "health" of the company in its operations before meaningful expenses like...taxes, interest on debt. It's not what's left at the end of the day.

True. That doesn't mean that it isn't a better number for making a comparison to other forms of investment income that are typically analyzed pre-tax.

Quote

The cost of the war is not equal to the subsidy to an industry.

It is when that industry benefits significantly more than others from those wars.

Quote

Odd that you didn't try to offer one though. You also conveniently left out the part where oil companies have to buy the oil to be refined, as that eats up about half of the gross receipts, before any other expenses.

I left it out because it isn't relevant. The wars help keep the market open and prices cheaper (or at least controlled by supply and demand). I never claimed the wars were supplying free oil to Exxon Mobil.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Odd that you didn't try to offer one though. You also conveniently left out the part where oil companies have to buy the oil to be refined, as that eats up about half of the gross receipts, before any other expenses.

I left it out because it isn't relevant. The wars help keep the market open and prices cheaper (or at least controlled by supply and demand). I never claimed the wars were supplying free oil to Exxon Mobil.

??? Prices cheaper? Market open? You're stating the "subsidies" in the context of the wars going on...government purchases of products related to such campaigns correct?

By increasing demand in such a way, prices have gone up. Those involved in such ventures make more because of that, but as such cost rise, their margins remain flat.

In the end, the oil companies do well because prices rose, the world economy is still an oil based economy. Their business is virtually guaranteed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

??? Prices cheaper? Market open? You're stating the "subsidies" in the context of the wars going on...government purchases of products related to such campaigns correct?

I'm saying that OIF opened up a supply side market for Exxon and other oil companies. That offers disproportionate benefits to companies in the oil industry (e.g., increase in supply with constant demand results in lower prices for oil), without charging members of that industry higher tax rates, i.e., it is a subsidization.

Quote

By increasing demand in such a way, prices have gone up. Those involved in such ventures make more because of that, but as such cost rise, their margins remain flat.

You apparently misunderstood my point, but it's worth noting that if prices go up and margins remain constant, profits increase.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

??? Prices cheaper? Market open? You're stating the "subsidies" in the context of the wars going on...government purchases of products related to such campaigns correct?

I'm saying that OIF opened up a supply side market for Exxon and other oil companies. That offers disproportionate benefits to companies in the oil industry (e.g., increase in supply with constant demand results in lower prices for oil), without charging members of that industry higher tax rates, i.e., it is a subsidization.

By your argument below though, they're already paying more in taxes....twice. The US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world...do want us to be "Number 1"? Also, the prices for oil did not go down, at all...they skyrocketed. As such volume of dollars increases, so did the volume of dollars get paid in taxes as well (both in Sales Transaction taxes and Income). I see the "subsidy" in terms of demand going up, but I don't follow you on the other perceived benefit. Supplies have not gone up except in the recent months with generally lower demand.

Quote

Quote

By increasing demand in such a way, prices have gone up. Those involved in such ventures make more because of that, but as such cost rise, their margins remain flat.

You apparently misunderstood my point, but it's worth noting that if prices go up and margins remain constant, profits increase.

Of course, but there is certainly no organized play here to gouge people. This is fairly easy to see. Given the amount of capital risk in the industry, these margins could arguably be much higher. Compared to the market risk for outfits like Apple or Microsoft...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

By your argument below though, they're already paying more in taxes....twice.

No, they aren't. What is Exxon's tax rate? What is Apple's tax rate? Who receives more benefit from the newly accessible supply? Exxon & other oil companies are paying the same rate, but receive a disproportionately large benefit.

Quote

Also, the prices for oil did not go down, at all...they skyrocketed.

You really don't get it, do you? That doesn't matter. Any way you look at it, the expense of accessing the additional Iraqi oil is being subsidized by taxpayers. It doesn't matter if oil is $30 per barrel or $300 per barrel. If you think that Exxon, et al. aren't benefiting from OIF, you're living in an alternate reality.

Quote

Of course, but there is certainly no organized play here to gouge people. This is fairly easy to see. Given the amount of capital risk in the industry, these margins could arguably be much higher. Compared to the market risk for outfits like Apple or Microsoft.

Do you really think Exxon faces higher risk than Apple or Microsoft? What planet are you living on?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

By your argument below though, they're already paying more in taxes....twice.

No, they aren't. What is Exxon's tax rate? What is Apple's tax rate? Who receives more benefit from the newly accessible supply? Exxon & other oil companies are paying the same rate, but receive a disproportionately large benefit.

The corporate tax rate is the same. Total income over $18M is 35%. If Exxon makes more than Apple, they pay more in taxes. They pay on the higher income. They also pay tax on the sales transaction. Refer to page 38 of their annual report. There are two distinct line items.

Quote

Quote

Also, the prices for oil did not go down, at all...they skyrocketed.

You really don't get it, do you? That doesn't matter. Any way you look at it, the expense of accessing the additional Iraqi oil is being subsidized by taxpayers. It doesn't matter if oil is $30 per barrel or $300 per barrel. If you think that Exxon, et al. aren't benefiting from OIF, you're living in an alternate reality.

Iraqi oil production. Iraqi oil contracts. There's certainly a lot of capitalization involved, and I don't see many American firms on these lists that get reported.

Quote

Quote

Of course, but there is certainly no organized play here to gouge people. This is fairly easy to see. Given the amount of capital risk in the industry, these margins could arguably be much higher. Compared to the market risk for outfits like Apple or Microsoft.

Do you really think Exxon faces higher risk than Apple or Microsoft? What planet are you living on?

Exxon's capital investment dwarfs Apple and Microsoft. It takes more money on the line to just get to the product before refining. Never mind the considerable human risk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9JY3eT4cdM
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/texas-refinery-explosion/3DA72502BA31A62DE35B3DA72502BA31A62DE35B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuGizBjDXo&feature=fvw

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

If they are providing value for our tax dollars and not ripping us off that would be refreshing.

you mean like acorn is going to start ripping us off again.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The corporate tax rate is the same.

Right, yet Exxon benefits FAR more than MS or Apple.

Quote

They also pay tax on the sales transaction.

Actually, the customer pays the sales tax. Retailers are entrusted to collect the taxes on behalf of the government(s). Even if you considered it a tax on Exxon, Apple would also be considered to pay sales tax on their sales.

Quote

Iraqi oil production. Iraqi oil contracts. There's certainly a lot of capitalization involved, and I don't see many American firms on these lists that get reported.

You must have missed the news:

The Iraqi Oil Ministry said [November 5, 2009] it awarded a consortium led by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC the right to develop the West Qurna-1 field in southern Iraq, representing the first American-led team gaining access to Iraq's oil patch.
…
For Exxon and Shell, two of the largest publicly listed oil companies, the deal grants entry into a country that boasts one of the world's largest reserves of petroleum. Like most of the oil-rich Middle East, the country has long been off limits to Western firms.
…
West Qurna-1 is believed to have about 8.7 billion barrels in oil reserves.

Quote

Exxon's capital investment dwarfs Apple and Microsoft. It takes more money on the line to just get to the product before refining.

You don't seem to understand what risk means.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!