so - you were saying, mvscal?

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

That big oil isn't reaping the profits because of exploration costs?

Yeah, They were saying that too. Guess you were both wrong.
AP IMPACT: Big Oil profits steered to investors

By JOHN PORRETTO, AP Business Writer 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

HOUSTON - As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.

The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn't stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion — nine times what it spent on exploration.

Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

State-run oil companies, like those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, control about 80 percent of oil reserves — and at today's prices, it's not surprising they're keeping a tight grip on what they have. Scarce equipment and hard-to-find labor also pose problems.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.

"It becomes a management decision," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's. "It's not like they're going to the board and saying, 'Well, I can do one or the other or the other.' The balance sheets are flush with cash."

So what's Big Oil to do?

The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.

TransCanada Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. just said they'd spend $7 billion to nearly double the amount of crude flowing through a pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

And analysts point out that because there's no guarantee oil prices will stay in the stratosphere, oil companies should approach exploration projects with caution.

"There's only so much money you can throw at it without being ridiculous," said Joseph Stanislaw, a senior adviser to Deloitte LLP's Energy & Resources practice. "I think they're doing what they can."

It's also important to remember it can take several years before a company produces the first barrel of oil from a new field.

One example is an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico called Thunder Horse. Operated by BP and partly owned by Exxon Mobil, the platform only last month began producing oil and gas — nine years after the field's discovery.

At its peak, the multibillion-dollar project is designed to produce 250,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it the Gulf's largest producer.

"When you look at the spending that's going on, the companies are bringing on a lot of long-term discoveries," said John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc.

At ConocoPhillips, the capital spending budget for 2008, which includes exploration and production, is $15.3 billion, more than double the spending of five years ago.

"Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion? Absolutely," spokesman Gary Russell said. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Exxon Mobil, known for its disciplined approach to investing in energy projects, has drawn criticism for its reluctance to invest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

The company expects to spent $25 billion to $30 billion on capital and exploration projects each of the next five years. Last year, it spent about $32 billion on share buybacks.

"You fund your investments that make sense," said spokesman Alan Jeffers. "You have criteria, and you have to meet that to be a good investment for the shareholder. And then if you've got cash that's left over, you're going to return it to the shareholder because it's theirs."

Exxon Mobil often touts its $100 million contribution to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. By contrast, BP says it plans to spend $8 billion over the next decade developing alternative energy using wind, hydrogen and other means.

Big Oil isn't alone buying back large amounts of stock, but the companies are certainly some of the biggest indulgers.

A boom in stock buybacks has been under way in corporate America since 2004. In the first quarter of this year, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron were all among the top 10 companies for share buybacks in the S&P 500.

In Washington, one Democratic proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on "unreasonable" profits of the top five oil companies, which together made more than $120 billion in 2007, and put the money toward a trust fund for investment in alternative energy sources. Republicans say it's a gimmick that won't help at the pump and will discourage domestic oil production.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the fervor for stock buybacks is a clear sign Big Oil isn't interested in new production or alternative energy.

"When you hear that," he said, "it screams out for a windfall profits tax."

oh. Almost forgot. Cue the "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about you gibbering dumbfuck" reset in 3,2,.....
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by War Wagon »

I reckon companies have the right to buy back the stock that they issued, from willing sellers. No big surprise there.

As well:
The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.
The "easy" oil isn't gone. It's readily available in ANWR and off the continental shelf. The "easy" oil is the oil that the Dem controlled Congress won't allow them to drill for... yet. But it's an election year, and we're starting to hear those tunes change.

It shall be interesting to see how many tree-huggers flip flop their positions over the next few months.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

1. They are buying back stock to make themselves richer off the bloated gas prices.

2. the "easy oil" is in the strategic reserve. Dump about 25% of that on the market and watch oil futures plummet, then buy it back up at a lower rate.

Too bad our fucking president can't do that math.
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

Mister Bushice wrote:Too bad our fucking president can't do that math.
He's the "war president", not the "arithmetic president".

That was McKinley, right?
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by War Wagon »

Mister Bushice wrote: the "easy oil" is in the strategic reserve. Dump about 25% of that on the market and watch oil futures plummet, then buy it back up at a lower rate.

Too bad our fucking president can't do that math.
Apparently, you're having trouble with the definition of 'strategic'.

The SPR was created in 1975 to offset any future oil embargo like happened in 1973/74. It's a national security concern, not meant to respond to the whims of the current market situation.

As for the math, the reserve holds about 700 million barrels, we use about 21 million a day. That's about a 35 day supply. Releasing 25% of that would have a neglible effect on the market, even if we had the refining capacity to absorb it, which we don't.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

Dumbshit,

First of all the max per day withdrawal from the reserve is only about 4 million barrels per day, giving it about a 6 month supply, and it is for emergency use. It would take more than a month of releasing oil from the SPR to reach the 25% figure, but the effect on the futures market would last much longer, and the government could then buy right back in, at lower prices.

Speculation drove prices up. A glut of available crude for refining will drive them right back down, as speculators and hedge investors will be more afraid to risk it given the volume available.

It won't happen, but doing nothing is not a better option.
User avatar
Y2K
Internet Overlord
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Fresno CA.

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Y2K »

So you consider a 6 month supply a "glut" big enough that'll drop prices enough to make a lasting dent in the economy.

Congrats Bushice, you are equally as stupid as our idiot President.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

No, I do not. I consider it a slap in the face to the speculators who artificially drove up oil prices in the first place. The drop in price of delivered oil over a period of even a month would hit them in their bank accounts.

Losing money, no matter how much or little, is enough to make any greedy asshole speculator think twice to do it again. Oil plummeted last week. You don't think those speculators who bought in at the peak price aren't chewing on their ties right about now?
User avatar
Y2K
Internet Overlord
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Fresno CA.

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Y2K »

What you would be doing is giving a corrupt government a pass at actually facing a situation that needs to be addressed. You asked if doing nothing is an option right now... Absolutely... People are so fucking stupid they need to get angry or be fucked over before they demand any accountability from government, remember that it's the best government that money can buy right? Watching the same shitters continue to shit on constituants and wreck the economy is a glorious thing because it's about fucking time American's pull their heads outta their ass. By the time this plays out we should have enough available labor to pull oil from the ground in record time, build refineries, nuke plants and solar arrays all at the same time. Plenty of good people waiting to go to work today but the guvment's standing in their way. Good times...
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by War Wagon »

Mister Bushice wrote: ...it is for emergency use.
Exactly.

Other than your alarming short sightedness, where's the emergency?

They already stopped adding to the SPR back in May, despite Bush's 2001 mandate to fill that fucker to the brim.

To be sure, I'm shocked you're suggesting raiding that. That would be a very short term fix.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

oh, this again. :meds:


"The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy."

'No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s."

"Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies."
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

The place to apply a serious windfall profits tax would be executive bonuses.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by PSUFAN »

It's pure black comedy gold to be reading so much of this lately:
Congrats Bushice, you are equally as stupid as our idiot President.
Yeah, he's an idiot...just as he was an idiot in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. No fucking kidding.

Now that he can't be the POTUS any longer, everyone is suddenly recognizing that fact...even those who steadfastly held his jock for him for so long...and questioned the patriotism of those who mentioned what was blatantly obvious.

Yeah...if it matters to you, your boy is a burned-out simpleton who never really achieved anything in his career that wasn't handed to him on a silver platter. But thanks for noticing and everything. I'm glad the folks surrounding were able to position him to their liking so that they could fill their arms to overflowing with cash.

The fervent support shown for this halfwit is the point where your credibility sets forth right now. Your rabid denunciations of him are funny and all, but really, fucking spare us already.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
Adelpiero
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 5208
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:23 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Adelpiero »

didn't they find a major oil field in North Dakota(was found before, but gas was low, costs would of been high compared to profits)

they say its a huge reserve that could be tapped.


true or false?
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by War Wagon »

Sudden Sam wrote:Upon W's becoming prez, my simplistic mind suggested that gas prices would skyrocket. Guess I ain't so stupid after all, huh?
If you're blaming Bush for high gas prices, then yeah, you're pitiably ignorant.

Bush has been advocating for going after increased supply by way of more domestic drilling since the day he took office. If we had done that 7 years ago, we might not be in such a clusterfuck now.
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21732
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by smackaholic »

How much would you invest looking for new sources if you had already done so and the feds said, nope, can't drill there?

It's fukking amazing that they explore at all.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Goober McTuber wrote:The place to apply a serious windfall profits tax would be executive bonuses.

Article 1, Section 9 says what?


Winfall profits taxes are unconstitutional. But since the Rule of Law means nothing in this country, and even the Articles are routinely tossed aside, some asshot will probably try to illegally take the oil companies money anyway.

Because goodness knows, taking money out of everyones' 401K and giving it to the government is a good idea. No, really -- the more of the wealth the fed controls, and the less in the hands of private citizens is a good thing.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

Dinsdale wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:The place to apply a serious windfall profits tax would be executive bonuses.

Article 1, Section 9 says what?


Winfall profits taxes are unconstitutional. But since the Rule of Law means nothing in this country, and even the Articles are routinely tossed aside, some asshot will probably try to illegally take the oil companies money anyway.

Because goodness knows, taking money out of everyones' 401K and giving it to the government is a good idea. No, really -- the more of the wealth the fed controls, and the less in the hands of private citizens is a good thing.
Please give us a rough accounting of how much of Mr. Raymond's compensation currently sits in your 401K, genius.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

The CEO of the most profitable company in human history made bank?

Gee, go figure.

He should be punished for doing his job well -- by passing laws ex post facto?

Sure. I mean what's a little Constitution, when there's some free money to take out of someone else's pocket, right?


Question -- Tiger Woods makes wayyyyy more money playing golf and endorsing products than Raymond makes running Exxon.

Phil Mickelson made more money than Raymond last year.

David Beckham made more money than Raymond last year.



Where do these high wage-earners fit into your lust to overthrow the American government with the ex post facto/attainder laws?


Should they be punished/fined as well for doing well? Would taxing the fuck out of A-Rod lower the price of tickets at Yankee Stadium?
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

He and Mickelson both made over $51 million last year, almost dead even. However, the degree to which any of us contribute to Mickelson’s income is voluntary. Likewise with A-Rod and ticket prices.

I find Raymond's compensation to be excessive. Simple and legal fix for that. I believe the progressive income tax used to hit the highest earners at a rate somewhere north of 70%. During one of the most successful growth periods in our economy.

But what about the CEOs who collect these enormous bonuses while running their companies into the ground (currently that would be the banking sector). Like how that helped your 401K?
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Goober McTuber wrote:But what about the CEOs who collect these enormous bonuses while running their companies into the ground

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Shareholders need to take the responsibility of keeping track of how their investment money is being managed. If they see abuses by the board, then sell it off... the stock tumbles, and there'ya'go -- CEO and the corp is out of business, and will never repeat the offense.


But wait...

The Average Joe just ain't that smart. And since we no longer live in a free country, the evil fed actually wants to take YOUR money and buy the irresponsible speculators out of debt... neat idea, eh?


WTF? If I go into the casino and blow my month's paycheck at the tables, I'm pretty sure the fed isn't going to bail me out at taxpayer expense. I don't really see the difference between that and mortgage lenders taking on huge risks to try and make a quick buck... and they get a taxpayer-funded get out of jail free card?


Nice job in the voting booths, asshats.


String every last one of the corrupt politicians up in the Town Square, on national television, I say.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Goober McTuber wrote:He and Mickelson both made over $51 million last year, almost dead even. However, the degree to which any of us contribute to Mickelson’s income is voluntary. Likewise with A-Rod and ticket prices.

Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to buy gasoline?


For myself, I've found alternative ways to get where I'm going. Sure, at present it's very easy for me, and that won't always be the case... but I've been buying very little gas lately.


Why?

Although I can pretty much afford to get where I need to go via my truck, it repulses me to put that much money in the likes of Raymond's pockets...


ready for it?...


SO I CHOOSE NOT TO.


Pretty simple fucking concept.


Exxon don't owe me shit. And I don't owe them shit. As long as we keep this relationship in perspective, I'm fine with it.


Funny how that supply/demand thing works... every fucking time, without exception, for thousands of years. Matter of fact, it's the ONLY trade rule that works.


And I CHOOSE to reduce my personal demand. Exxon et al are getting wayyyy less of my money than they used to. Because I'm a Good Fucking American -- it benefits me, and it benefits all of us. The American People have been pushed around by nanny-staters for so long, they've come to expect it. People honestly believe it's up to everyone else to do something about gas prices... which is sad, since The People are the ONLY ones who can do anything about it, and they CHOOSE not to...


truly sad what sheeple Americans have become.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

Dinsdale wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:But what about the CEOs who collect these enormous bonuses while running their companies into the ground

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Shareholders need to take the responsibility of keeping track of how their investment money is being managed. If they see abuses by the board, then sell it off... the stock tumbles, and there'ya'go -- CEO and the corp is out of business, and will never repeat the offense.
Sell off the stock? You mean like while the company is spending record amounts trying to buy back their stock in order to drive up the value of the remaining shares, a number of which undoubtedly reside in these executives’ portfolios? Brilliant.

I try to burn less gas than I used to, but I don’t have a valid alternative for getting to work. A lot of people don’t have valid alternatives for getting where they need to go.

The Mickelson comparison was extremely weak, even by your standards.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Goober McTuber wrote:The Mickelson comparison was extremely weak, even by your standards.

OK.

People who make a lot of money through certain means should be taxed up the yingyang, while other high wage earners get a pass.


Yeah, that sounds pretty American.


Of course, you still haven't adressed the flagrant violation of attainder laws, one of the basic premises of American Law.


But that's right, it's the Bush Era... the US Constitution doesn't mean shit. But the Voice of the People suddenly becomes silent and stops sticking up for itself when there's a buck to be made...


Welcome to life in The Country Formerly Known as America.


Heck, maybe a windfall profit tax will almost cover the beauracracy that will be created to levy and collect the windfall profits tax, and all the time Congress spends debating it.


Because goodness knows, the bigger the fed, the better. They're doing such a wonderful job managing the money they get (about half of every dollar in the country, at present), that we should probably remove more of the money from the hands of citizens and put it in the hands of the fed, to spend as they please without meaningful representation (since you asshats fuck that process up every single time).


I mean, it went swimmingly for the Soviets, and the standard of living in China is something to be envious of.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

mvscal wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I try to burn less gas than I used to, but I don’t have a valid alternative for getting to work. A lot of people don’t have valid alternatives for getting where they need to go.
Tough shit. Am I supposed to care?

Put a tankful of gas in a UHaul, and move next to public trasit.

No one put a gun to your head and made you live where you do. No one makes you work anywhere.


These are the choices of personal responsibility. I realize "personal responsibility" are dirty fucking words in modern society... which is pretty much the root of this country's problems.


I CHOOSE to live next to a major bus line. I CHOOSE to take it whenever possible. I CHOOSE to work where I do at present. The next job might end up being 50 miles away, at which point I will wither carpool, or find some other cost-effective means to get there, or I will politely decline the assignment and face the consequences... or alternately, I'll suck it up and pay for the gas to get there.

Either way, it's my choice. Regardless what I decide, I don't expect anyone else to pay for it. Any claim I can make to the money in another person's pocket in regards to gas is politically-based, which requires that an entire corrupt system be remedied, not a one-time bandaid put on it to make me feel vindicated.


It's my same beef with the socialized medicine and all those jazzy programs -- I don't believe, from a moral standpoint, that I have any claim whatsoever to the money in anyone else's pocket beyong paying for the infrastructure we all share (reasonably) equally.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

Dinsdale wrote: No one put a gun to your head and made you live where you do. No one makes you work anywhere.
Try telling that to parents with kids who made the sacrifice of moving out of a shithole city to a place where their kids can be safe in school, on the streets, and have their own bedroom in a nice home, understanding they now have an hour commute to a job they can't get where they live, in an economy where the housing market has made it impossible to sell houses in most of those places, and with gas prices that were not even a remote threat 3 or 4 years ago when they moved there.

Just because you are willing to pass out with your dick up the ass of some fat whore in an alley behind a bar and wake up on a bench with yesterdays newspaper as a blanket hardly qualifies you as a representative of reality.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Mister Bushice wrote:Try telling that to parents with kids who made the sacrifice of moving out of a shithole city to a place where their kids can be safe in school, on the streets, and have their own bedroom in a nice home, understanding they now have an hour commute to a job they can't get where they live, in an economy where the housing market has made it impossible to sell houses in most of those places, and with gas prices that were not even a remote threat 3 or 4 years ago when they moved there.

What an amazing amount of hot air you've blown here.

So fucking stupid, it hardly merits a response, but I'll humor you me.


Where I live has good safe schools. Loaded with nice homes. Homes that are in a slow market... which means that the prices are down WHEN YOU GO TO BUY ANOTHER HOUSE... crazy how that works.

All this... and it's next to a major bus line.


Yup... the fact no one put a gun to anyone's head and made them buy gas or live where they live or work where they work still holds true... and it will tomorrow... and the next day... until the Nanny Staters have their way, anyway.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by RadioFan »

Y2K wrote:Plenty of good people waiting to go to work today but the guvment's standing in their way. Good times...
T.Boone seems to agree.

By Suzanne Gamboa
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens asked Congress on Tuesday to "clear the path" for his plan to boost use of wind and natural gas for U.S. energy needs.

Pickens has been on a $58 million publicity tour to promote his plan to erect wind turbines in the Midwest to generate electricity, replacing the 22 percent of U.S. power produced from natural gas. The freed up natural gas then could be used for transportation.

Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Pickens said the government should begin building transmission lines for wind-generated power or provide the right of way on private land and extend tax credits so the private sector can build the lines.

"If the government wanted to build a grid, I mean, do it," he said. "But if they don't want to do it, I think the money is there to do it private, and so it's kind of like either do it or get out of the way, but give us the corridors to put it in and it'll be done. You could do this on a very, very fast track if you wanted."

Pickens suggested that Congress follow the lead of former President Eisenhower, who declared an emergency to build the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s.

Pickens has leased hundreds of thousands of acres for a giant wind farm in West Texas, where he plans to erect 2,700 turbines and produce energy for urban areas such as Dallas and Fort Worth. He has run into some opposition from West Texas landowners who are unhappy with his efforts to obtain rights of way to build the wind farm and a pipeline for a separate water project.

Specifically, Pickens asked Congress to extend a 2005 law intended to speed up the creation of energy corridors, and to give him control over any transmission lines he builds for wind-generated power. All electric transmission lines are now regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Pickens also called for a 10-year extension of a tax credit for energy producers. He estimated it would cost taxpayers $15 billion a year in production tax credits for 200,000 megawatts of wind power.

"When you look at $700 billion dollars going out of country every year for purchase of oil, $15 billion is somewhat insignificant," he said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., called Pickens' plan bold and said he hoped Pickens' testimony would "infect people in a position in Washington to do something about it."

But the oilman's plan raised questions with Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who asked if it would hurt the chemical industry, which relies on natural gas as raw material. He said the industry probably won't like seeing natural gas costs increase.

Pickens estimated it would cost about $500 billion to increase wind energy production from the 4,000 megawatts to be generated at his Texas wind farm to 200,000 megawatts, the amount needed to power 20 percent of U.S. energy needs. Transmission lines and the tax credit would add another $15 billion.

At that level, he said, "You're approaching about one year's supply of oil that you're buying. But don't get the idea that replaces that oil, it doesn't. It will only replace 38 percent."

In addition to the hearing, Pickens also met privately Tuesday with Democratic and Republican members of Congress as well as Texas senators.
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
User avatar
Sirfindafold
Shit Thread Alert
Posts: 2939
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:08 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Sirfindafold »

Mister Bushice wrote:Try telling that to parents with kids who made the sacrifice of moving out of a shithole city to a place where their kids can be safe in school, on the streets, and have their own bedroom in a nice home, understanding they now have an hour commute to a job they can't get where they live, in an economy where the housing market has made it impossible to sell houses in most of those places, and with gas prices that were not even a remote threat 3 or 4 years ago when they moved there.

Well, boo fucking hoo. How did the pilgrims ever make it?

pussies.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

Dinsdale wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Try telling that to parents with kids who made the sacrifice of moving out of a shithole city to a place where their kids can be safe in school, on the streets, and have their own bedroom in a nice home, understanding they now have an hour commute to a job they can't get where they live, in an economy where the housing market has made it impossible to sell houses in most of those places, and with gas prices that were not even a remote threat 3 or 4 years ago when they moved there.

What an amazing amount of hot air you've blown here.

So fucking stupid, it hardly merits a response, but I'll humor you me.


Where I live has good safe schools. Loaded with nice homes. Homes that are in a slow market... which means that the prices are down WHEN YOU GO TO BUY ANOTHER HOUSE... crazy how that works.

All this... and it's next to a major bus line.
How nice for you.

Bay area home prices have been unaffordable for the average family for over a decade, unless you don't mind living in a drug or gang area of san jose or EPA.
But those areas DO have great bus service, that I'll give you.

However Silicon valley is where all the good paying jobs are located. The affordable, decent housing is an hour or more commute away

Case in point. A close family friend of ours was living with relatives in a house in santa clara. His three kids shared a bedroom with two other kids, and each set of parents had a bedroom. Rather cramped.

Even on a good salary he couldn't buy a decent house there for less than 750K unless he didn't mind exposing his kids to drive bys, drugs, and all that fun stuff. I'll admit, the bus line service in east palo alto nearly swayed him, though. I think it was the crime rate there that swayed him back

So he chose to buy a house 90 minutes drive time outside of the city 4 years ago, where each kid had their own bedroom, a backyard, and they could play outside without fear of getting shot at, AND go to a school where there were no gang problems or drug dealers. He commuted a couple times a week, staying with the relatives for several nights.

When the gas prices went up, he cut his commute to Monday morning / Friday, so now he only sees his kids on weekends.

But moving back to the city is still not an option. The Bay Area prices in acceptable neighborhoods have NOT gone down, and who the fuck wants to buy some piece of shit 60 year old 1400 square foot house for 500k?

He's fortunate to have a place to stay in the city, but otherwise he'd probably have to short sell the house or walk away, because he's upside down at present like many people are. I don't hear him complain a lot about it, but don't start preaching like everyone has such an easy choice. Uprooting kids and relocating to less desirable environs is just not on the table for most people. Most of the options have been taken away, primarily because of the cost of fuel.

So it's great where you live. We know. You've told us all endlessly how perfect things are in the U & L.

Yet - who the fuck would want to live next to you, anyway? You probably never shut the fuck up. And the constant migration of bar whales in and out of your pad certainly would qualify as an eyesore.
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

Dinsdale wrote:I CHOOSE to live next to a major bus line. I CHOOSE to take it whenever possible. I CHOOSE to work where I do at present. The next job might end up being 50 miles away, at which point I will wither carpool, or find some other cost-effective means to get there, or I will politely decline the assignment and face the consequences... or alternately, I'll suck it up and pay for the gas to get there.
That, or you'll just move again. Easy to do when you rent.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Oddly enough, missing from that most heartwrenching tale was the gun to dude's head.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Goober McTuber wrote:
That, or you'll just move again. Easy to do when you rent.

For a 2-3 week deal?

Kinda doubt it.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

mvscal wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I try to burn less gas than I used to, but I don’t have a valid alternative for getting to work. A lot of people don’t have valid alternatives for getting where they need to go.
Tough shit. Am I supposed to care? In any event, executive compensation doesn't have jack fucking shit to do with the price of gas.
I never said it did.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

Dinsdale wrote:Oddly enough, missing from that most heartwrenching tale was the gun to dude's head.
Oh, there was one. You just didn't recognize the metaphor because all you ever have to care about is your own irresponsible ass.

It's call kids, and the resultant responsibility to protect and raise them. Amazing the motivation to live safely and well that gets created when you have them.
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Goober McTuber »

mvscal wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
mvscal wrote: Tough shit. Am I supposed to care? In any event, executive compensation doesn't have jack fucking shit to do with the price of gas.
I never said it did.
Then why were you whimpering about Lee Raymond's compensation?
In response to the request for a windfall profits tax, I suggested a “windfall profits tax” on excessive executive compensation. I didn’t actually believe that that it would be a windfall tax per se, just a return to a truly progressive income tax. We’re going to have to find a way somehow to pay for Bush’s enormous deficits.

A better example probably would have been the CEO for Bear Stearns, who undoubtedly collected enormous bonuses right up until the company sold for 10 cents on the dollar.
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21732
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by smackaholic »

I musta missed the part in the constitution where it says you get to live in the bay area, in a nice neighborhood if that's what you want.

News flash!!! There are parts of the country where there exists good paying jobs, good schools and affordable housing. Many other folks have discovered this and moved there.

But, but, I wanna live in "the city" and work for some geekie tech company and that evil bastard who owns exxon can afford it, so lets take some of his jack so I can too. Wait, that's right, my share of his jack will be a fraction of a penny. So fukking what. Take it anyhoo.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21732
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by smackaholic »

Mister Bushice wrote: It's call kids, and the resultant responsibility to protect and raise them in one of the highest cost of living areas in the universe. Amazing the motivation to live safely and well that gets created when you have them.
ftfy, nc.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Dinsdale »

Bushice plungered himself again?


Man, never saw that coming.

But feel free to contunue trying to somehow equate my lifestyle with other peoples' personal responsibility and choices... I mean, it makes perfect sense, right? If the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, and all.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: so - you were saying, mvscal?

Post by Mister Bushice »

smackaholic wrote:I musta missed the part in the constitution where it says you get to live in the bay area, in a nice neighborhood if that's what you want.

News flash!!! There are parts of the country where there exists good paying jobs, good schools and affordable housing. Many other folks have discovered this and moved there.
So you're willing to move your family far away from all of your relatives and friends so that you'll only get to see them on holidays and MAYBE in the summer for a week? Do that. Let me know how much they appreciate relocating to a place where they don't know a fucking soul and are too far away to make a weekend or day trip to visit anyone they do know.

Oh and NEWS FLASH - The Bay Area is not the only expensive place to live.
Post Reply