• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GREEDY American Oil companys record "RECORD PROFITS!"

SouthernDemocrat said:
I bet almost anyone would trade the ninties for the Bush years.

Besides, the Clinton Administration consistently recieved good ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The Bush Administration is the first ever to recieve an F rating from the non-partisan organization.

Oookkkkkaaayyyyy....

And the grades of an Environmental Political Group correlates with my comment HOW?:confused:
 
cnredd said:
Oookkkkkaaayyyyy....

And the grades of an Environmental Political Group correlates with my comment HOW?:confused:

Opps, I saw a comment above yours. Sorry.:lol:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Opps, I saw a comment above yours. Sorry.:lol:

I'm not worried...you'll get around to bashing me....Looks like I just gotta wait my turn;)
 
galenrox said:
They are regulated similarly to any other industry. They're in an industry that has quite a few more capabilities to screw up the environment than most other industries, and they have been operating under these policies for years, and subsidies aren't there to prop them up, they're there to keep them afloat, and I think that considering they're making record profits, we don't need to give them our tax dollars, since they're already sucking our pockets dry of the money that the government isn't taking.

When you enter any idustry or choose to continue to operate in any industry, you have to accept the realities of that particular industry, and in energy markets there are significant regulations, and you make an economic decision whether this makes the market bad enough that you don't want to be in it. The oil companies entered and remained in the oil industry knowing full well about the regulation. So no, I'm not saying repealing the regulations. I have absolutely no problem with them turning record profits, what I do have problems with is the fact that our government is giving them extra money on top of that. And I simply can't understand why in the hell you wouldn't have a problem with that! Have you and a few of your buddies ever split 8 billion dollars from the government? You know what that means? The government cares more about them than us, and for some reason you seem to like that.

And I'm not sure what your issue with the profit numbers is. Profit is not the same as revenue, just making sure you know. Profit and net income are the same thing, not profit and revenue, which seems to be the assumption that you're working under.

Ironically, two of the most heavily regulated industries, Pharmaceuticals and Oil, are also the two most profitable industries.
 
cnredd said:
I'm not worried...you'll get around to bashing me....Looks like I just gotta wait my turn;)

I don't bash you. I just bash your opinions.;)
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ironically, two of the most heavily regulated industries, Pharmaceuticals and Oil, are also the two most profitable industries.

But which is the cause and which is the effect? Those industries are not profitable because they are regulated; they are regulated because they are profitable.

There happens to be a large demand for pharmaceuticals and oil if you hadn't noticed. Is it really surprising that the government wants to get a piece of the pie?

I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T be regulated...but implying that regulation increases profits leads to some very bad conclusions.
 
Kandahar said:
But which is the cause and which is the effect? Those industries are not profitable because they are regulated; they are regulated because they are profitable.

There happens to be a large demand for pharmaceuticals and oil if you hadn't noticed. Is it really surprising that the government wants to get a piece of the pie?

I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T be regulated...but implying that regulation increases profits leads to some very bad conclusions.

Of course they are not profitable because they are regulated. But they are regulated for the health and safety of everyone and the good of the environment.
 
Between his shares in Oil and Pharmaceuticals,President Bush is going to be very rich when he leaves offiece.Than he will become a board member on all those boards of direcors at $ 50K a year he's got it made.
 
I am not a big fan of either Bush or Clinton, since they seemed to give away money to oil companies whenever they asked for it. Corporate welfare is no different than welfare mothers who wont work. They only take more of the taxpayers' money.

However, politics aside, I will take a position that might make me pretty unpopular around here. The oil companies have a right to charge whatever they want for their products. If we dont like it, we can always use less of those products. Also, if they get too greedy, jumpstarting a hydrogen economy wont seem as bad. In the end, the oil companies, in their shortsightedness and short term greed, are only cutting off their own feet, and thats fine by me. I want hydrogen enough that I wont mind being gouged for a little while longer.
 
danarhea said:
I am not a big fan of either Bush or Clinton, since they seemed to give away money to oil companies whenever they asked for it. Corporate welfare is no different than welfare mothers who wont work. They only take more of the taxpayers' money.

However, politics aside, I will take a position that might make me pretty unpopular around here. The oil companies have a right to charge whatever they want for their products. If we dont like it, we can always use less of those products. Also, if they get too greedy, jumpstarting a hydrogen economy wont seem as bad. In the end, the oil companies, in their shortsightedness and short term greed, are only cutting off their own feet, and thats fine by me. I want hydrogen enough that I wont mind being gouged for a little while longer.
I will join you in this unpopular stance...:2wave:
 
JOHNYJ said:
Between his shares in Oil and Pharmaceuticals,President Bush is going to be very rich when he leaves offiece.Than he will become a board member on all those boards of direcors at $ 50K a year he's got it made.

50K a year.
maybe 50 years ago
past presidents will fetch $50-100k for a single speech
though i doubt they will be lining up to pay dubya to speak publicly:doh
they are paid MILIONS to sit on a board
 
danarhea said:
I am not a big fan of either Bush or Clinton, since they seemed to give away money to oil companies whenever they asked for it. Corporate welfare is no different than welfare mothers who wont work. They only take more of the taxpayers' money.

However, politics aside, I will take a position that might make me pretty unpopular around here. The oil companies have a right to charge whatever they want for their products. If we dont like it, we can always use less of those products. Also, if they get too greedy, jumpstarting a hydrogen economy wont seem as bad. In the end, the oil companies, in their shortsightedness and short term greed, are only cutting off their own feet, and thats fine by me. I want hydrogen enough that I wont mind being gouged for a little while longer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

"WELFARE MOTHERS WHO WON'T WORK"

:roll: Welfare "mothers" will have kids! How are they supposed to go to work?

BLAME THE "FATHERS" that DO NOT SUPPORT their kids!!! GEEZZ!!!:doh

------
AND BTW: Its called "PRICE GOUGING"!!!:doh

OIL (unlike POPCORN) :roll: is something that pertains to our NATIONAL SECURITY and the well being of our country so it SHOULD BE REGULATED!!!
 
President Bush will never do anything to rhein in the Oil companies.The only possability is the house.The Republican speaker is from a Northern State . Fuel Oil is sapose to be very high this year.
 
DeeJayH said:
50K a year.
maybe 50 years ago
past presidents will fetch $50-100k for a single speech
though i doubt they will be lining up to pay dubya to speak publicly:doh
they are paid MILIONS to sit on a board

Oh, you never know? Maybe Bush can try to speak seriously, but advertise himself as a stand-up comic? I can just see him raking in the dough at all those American Legion halls! LOL He could be the new Bob Hope for the USO? He plays golf, doesn't he?
 
taxpayer said:
:roll: Welfare "mothers" will have kids! How are they supposed to go to work?

BLAME THE "FATHERS" that DO NOT SUPPORT their kids!!! GEEZZ!!!:doh

:2rofll:

Welfare moms will work just like EVERY OTHER WORKING SINGLE MOM

SUCK IT UP AND DO IT

and until they get a decent job stop spreading your legs

and dead beat dads should and are being held accountable
except when the lazy good for nothing welfare mom fails to report him:3oops:
 
DeeJayH said:
:2rofll:

Welfare moms will work just like EVERY OTHER WORKING SINGLE MOM

SUCK IT UP AND DO IT

and until they get a decent job stop spreading your legs

and dead beat dads should and are being held accountable
except when the lazy good for nothing welfare mom fails to report him:3oops:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW!!!

Stop spreading their legs?
Lazy good for nothings?
Suck it up and just do it?

Did you have a problem with a welfare mom???

A friend of mine has one of those PLUSHY jobs in court pertaining to WELFARE!!! Let me explain it to YA!!!

The LAZY WELFARE MOM reports NO ONE!!! Once a father has been told by a judge in court to pay child support he makes his payments to the COURT, >>>"NOT<<<" to the wife OR kids he left without food to go on welfare! He pays the C-O-U-R-T So NO ONE has to report the DEAD BEAT DAD! If the courts DO NOT get a check from Mr DEAD BEAT DAD then they just issue a warrant for him!

------------
HOWEVER there is a "way out" (that I heard thru the grapevine) was started by some Republicans! It is done to TRICK the courts!
What happens is the REPUBLICAN Mom ON welfare will put on the kids birth certificate "FATHER UNKNOWN"! Now the Rebublican welfare mom will stay on welfare and the Republican DEAD BEAT DAD will go scott free with NO payments put on him by the court.

BUT DNA is now being used to determine if someone is the father of a child and if they are found to be the father of a child on welfare they will be ordered in court to PAY UP OR ELSE!

So what this means now is that many Republican DEAD BEAT DADS will now have to OWN UP-Get a JOB and PAY UP!!!

BTW: To be fair a few Democrats and others have also used this trick. The grapevine says that the ratio using this trick is:
Republicans- 90%.
Democrats- 8%.
Other- 2%.
 
JOHNYJ said:
President Bush will never do anything to rhein in the Oil companies.The only possability is the house.The Republican speaker is from a Northern State . Fuel Oil is sapose to be very high this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets hope he has the nerve to stand up against "OIL CAN BUSH"!!!
 
taxpayerAND BTW: Its called "PRICE GOUGING"!!!:doh OIL (unlike POPCORN) :roll: is something that pertains to our NATIONAL SECURITY and the well being of our country so it SHOULD BE REGULATED!!![/quote said:
If the government nationalized the beer industry, they could not make it for under 100 dollars a six pack. Let the market set the price, and keep the government's paws out of the market. If the oil companies charge too much, they will ultimately end up screwing themselves. That is the way the market works. What you should be pissed about is the billions of dollars of our tax money that our government just gives to them.
 
taxpayer said:
BTW: To be fair a few Democrats and others have also used this trick. The grapevine says that the ratio using this trick is:
Republicans- 90%.
Democrats- 8%.
Other- 2%.

would really be great if you could source that "data"
and i dont mean MoveOn.org either
 
taxpayer said:
On C-Span-2 today!

American oil companys are having a ball taking advantage of the oil countrys high prices and taking advantage of the aftermats of Katrina!

"Today alone" the American oil companys made $230 MILLION "ABOVE" the alwready record daily profit they are getting!
-----------
Remember, there is NO SHORTAGE of gas just a shortage of Bush and the Republican controlled congress caring if Americans have enough money left to eat after filling their auto and home fuel tanks.
PROVING ONCE AGAIN THATTHEY JUST DO NOT CARE ABOUT WORKING AMERICAN CITIZENS!!! Just the RICH!!!

You are complaining about accusations that are inknowledgable to you! Companies sell their oil at market value! The reason why the gas seams so unbelievably high is due to Inflation. Gas prices are techincally the same accordince with infaltion! Also, the 230 million is the same way, It might be record profit, but if you adjust it without inflation, its roughly or even below normal profit level!
 
Originally Posted by Stinger
So what? It's a meaningless number as you state it.

What was net margin? THAT the number to look at.
What was thier ROI or ROA?

Just stating that they made that much money tells you nothing, if they were only making a 2% net profit then they weren't making much money were they.

And what percentage profit should they be allowed to make in your world?



Hoot said:
My argument is not about their profits, but our government giving them an additional 8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.

Well let's see what you actually posted:

I read that last year, the oil companies made profits of about 257 billion, yes, that's BILLION.

What I want to know is, how can the Republicans, and Bush, give these oil companies 8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies?

So your complaint IS based on the 257 billion profit. So again I ask do you know what margin on sales this represented, what was the ROI and ROA and what profit should they be allowed to make in your world. And what exactly were the subsidies and tax breaks for? If they were for lower priced heating oil to the elderly would you still be upset? How about research into alternative fuels?
 
Galenrox posted >>I personally have no problems with their profits. I think they're doing just fine, so I'd say it's high time we cut off government subsidies of them and let them fly on their own.
Them selling their product at market value is what they're supposed to do, the government giving them our tax dollars is exchange for NOTHING is not.

I asked
Originally Posted by Stinger
And take off the regulations too?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah let’s return to the good old days of massive oil spills and rivers catching on fire. Everyone has environmental regulations that they have to adhere to. Why would we exempt oil companies from them?

So I guess your answer is no? How about ther regulations that require all the different blends? How about the regulation in my state that say that stations can't sell gas for less than it cost them?
 
I am in favor of a joint House/Senate investigation into how Oil Companies operate and how and why they make the profits they do. The rest of the world laughs at our $3.00 per gallon and our whining about it. Many Americans know the severity of these prices when they have gone up as fast as they have. Many have no choice but to drive or sit in traffic for hours each workday. They are paying as much as 65% more within just the last 2 years.

I think there should be an investigation and all the BS about how our President sits in a dark room in the White House with oil men or some Democrat Senator from a corn producing state meets with refiners to line his campaign pockets could be put to rest. What say people? Do you trust your Democrats and Republicans to do their jobs?

When I hear anyone blame Republicans or Democrats being in the pocket of anyone; environmentalists or oil men I have to laugh. Isn't it either or? I mean isn't it either a Democrat or a Republican? Two parties; two choices; two roadblocks to getting our work done? Until the people shuck the two party system; stop playing the Democrat's and Republican's game for the benefit of the also corrupt media and go non-partisan, we will get plenty of the same. Politics instead of public servants; partisan bickering instead of rolled up sleves at the table; political favors instead or solid representation.

Republicans and Democrats. Roadblocks to success.
:duel :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom