Pegasus Has Fallen...again..

[Van]

And the models with the green diesel are not more expensive.

Not true, at least in this country. The clean diesels always carry at least a $2-3K premium over their gasoline-powered counterparts.

[Mikey]

Finally got tired of the old Sonata a month or so ago. Peeling paint, AC needed a re-charge, made a horrible grinding noise going over bumps on cold mornings that new struts all around didn't fix.

Thought about getting one of those "clean diesel" V dubs but decided to stay American and got a Ford Fusion hybrid. Unfortunately I couldn't get smackaholic to help pay for it.

Averaging about 42 mpg now and getting better as the system gets broke in. Plus it's about the best handling and quietest car I've ever owned. Never had a Mercedes or a Beemer though.
Wags should be happy I bought American made in Mexico.

[LTS TRN 2]

Of course Exxon isn't sitting idly by as the facts of its business model come clear. Reporters in Arkansas are being prevented from visiting the spill site--and threatened with arrest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 70591.html

[Left Seater]

Man you should really read your links beyond just the headlines.

Exxon says the ads are "based entirely on factual inaccuracy" and are also "defamatory." The sponsoring organizations don't deny that exactly, but argue that the ads are meant as parody.

The sponsoring organizations agree the info isn't factual. Nice.


Also, LTS who do you think is getting rich off of all this so called "gross profit" by Big Oil?

[LTS TRN 2]

They didn't admit the piece wasn't factual at all. It is factual. Or what? What part do you dispute? Moreover, they simply admitted--or didn't exactly deny--that the piece was meant to defame Exxon. Yes, that's what a satirical piece does.

As for the reporters being threatened with arrest in Arkansas, this should give you some real concern. As for who's making the giant dough at Exxon, start at the top..

Chief Executive Rex Tillerson received $34.9 million in total compensation, up from $29 million in 2010, Exxon said in a proxy statement filed with regulators on Thursday.

meanwhile...

The CEO of U.S. rival Chevron Corp, John Watson, collected a total of $24.7 million in 2011, his second year in the job. That was a 52 percent increase from $16.3 million in 2010, according to Chevron's proxy, also out on Thursday.

Wow! Jacking up the prices at the pump surely calls for--and results in--a big fat raise for the top piggies, eh?

[Left Seater]

They didn't admit the piece wasn't factual at all.

The ads sponsors don't deny Exxon's claims "that the ads are "based entirely on factual innacurracies."

What part of that don't you understand? The ads were not based on truth. Period.


Wow, the Exxon CEO was paid $34.9 Million last year. That doesn't put him anywhere near the top 10 of CEO compensation.

Let's talk facts LTS. Big Oil executives hold only 1.5% of the outstanding public shares. You know who holds the remainder? You and I do! The vast majority of Big Oil is held in mutual funds, pension and retirement funds and IRAs. Those are the folks making money.

[LTS TRN 2]

L-seater, stop the corporate cheerleading routine for a minute. Put down the pom-poms and think carefully about reporters being threatened with arrest for investigating Exxon's spill. Do you suppose the police are just acting on their own? For the benefit of public safety? Okay, now consider the parody piece on Exxon--and try to find an essentially misleading or untrue statement in it. Hmmm?

As to the CEOs pushing their snouts deep into the trough, bear in mind that just as these startling amounts of compensation--huge raises--are being announced, consider that the expected dividends for the common investor--you know, the good folks you're trying to suggest are actually benefiting from the corporate splurging?--well they were all told NOT AT THIS TIME. That's right, no dividend, only the fat cats are feeding and getting much fatter.

[smackaholic]

Finally got tired of the old Sonata a month or so ago. Peeling paint, AC needed a re-charge, made a horrible grinding noise going over bumps on cold mornings that new struts all around didn't fix.

Thought about getting one of those "clean diesel" V dubs but decided to stay American and got a Ford Fusion hybrid. Unfortunately I couldn't get smackaholic to help pay for it.

Averaging about 42 mpg now and getting better as the system gets broke in. Plus it's about the best handling and quietest car I've ever owned. Never had a Mercedes or a Beemer though.
Wags should be happy I bought American made in Mexico.

Dude, if you hadn't tapped me out with the MST, I woulda thrown you some coin for the fusion. The fusion is a damn nice rig and ford's hybri dsystem is pretty kick as.

Rack you for buyin' central Amurhkin'

BTW, my Sonata is still running like new. Oil changes and a set of brake pads is all it asks for. But that is likely because I bought the base 4 cylinder 5 speed. I assume you went with the V-6 auto being mr moneybags and all. Plus I think the V-6 has a slightly higher GVW which comes in handy when hauling around morbidly obese folk.

[Left Seater]

You claim Exxon lies, why call them out if we aren't going to hold the other side to the same?

So if you are upset with exec comp for Big Oil, then where is the outrage at drug manufacturers, beverage makers, software companies, etc.

Those all make far more profit as a percentage of sales. Big Oil might make dime profit on a dollar of sales, but many are making 4 dimes on each dollar of sales. Where is the outrage on those profits?

[LTS TRN 2]

The "other side" isn't lying. While the parody piece may be typically pointed and satirical, it's completely true. And no, the group who made the piece did not admit any sort of duplicity as you insist. But where is YOUR disagreement with the piece's accusations? Where is your outrage of the CEOs getting giant raises while the average shareholder gets stiffed? Why aren't you outraged that Exxon would use its muscle to threaten reporters with arrest?

As for taking Big Pharma and the Insurance cabal to task, sure, but that's another thread, isn't it? Or...can't you stay on a topic?

[mvscal]

As to the CEOs pushing their snouts deep into the trough, bear in mind that just as these startling amounts of compensation-

It's not coming out of your pocket. Why do you give a shit about that and are mute about the political piggies pushing their snouts deep in the taxpayer trough? Now their gorging is coming out of your pocket.

...consider that the expected dividends for the common investor--you know, the good folks you're trying to suggest are actually benefiting from the corporate splurging?--well they were all told NOT AT THIS TIME. That's right, no dividend,

Actually that's wrong. They paid 57 cents per share on February 7th. Good job kicking your own ass again, you fucking idiot.

http://dividata.com/stock/XOM/dividend

[Van]

As for taking Big Pharma and the Insurance cabal to task, sure, but that's another thread, isn't it? Or...can't you stay on a topic?

And besides, we don't have to buy Starbucks or Viagra. (Well, besides Mikey.) For most people, there's no getting around the rising price of oil.

Lefty, during a worldwide economic downturn there really is no justifying the exorbitant salaries Big Oil, Inc. is paying its executives, much less those massive increases in CEO compensation. That's just rubbing the public's nose in it. There is certainly also no reason these companies should be making record profits right now on a necessary product. A little austerity on their part, even if it's just pure window-dressing, would be a good thing.

[mvscal]

As for taking Big Pharma and the Insurance cabal to task, sure, but that's another thread, isn't it? Or...can't you stay on a topic?

And besides, we don't have to buy Starbucks or Viagra. (Well, besides Mikey.) For most people, there's no getting around the rising price of oil.

Lefty, during a worldwide economic downturn there really is no justifying the exorbitant salaries Big Oil, Inc. is paying its executives, much less those massive increases in CEO compensation. That's just rubbing the public's nose in it. There is certainly also no reason these companies should be making record profits right now on a necessary product. A little austerity on their part, even if it's just pure window-dressing, would be a good thing.

Record profits means record tax payments, idiot. Or do you just not have any idea how corporations actually operate?

[Van]

As to the CEOs pushing their snouts deep into the trough, bear in mind that just as these startling amounts of compensation-

It's not coming out of your pocket.

Sure it is. Those sorts of insane salaries and bonuses are entirely driven by profits, which are very much a function of supply and demand and the resultant selling prices these companies rig to keep those profits coming. Reduce the gross profit and you likely also reduce CEO and all other upper management compensation.

Why do you give a shit about that and are mute about the political piggies pushing their snouts deep in the taxpayer trough? Now their gorging is coming out of your pocket.

It's not as if Nick doesn't also rail against all manner of corporate/governmental greed. He most certainly does. And like he said, those are topics for another thread.

[Van]

A little austerity on their part, even if it's just pure window-dressing, would be a good thing.

Record profits means record tax payments, idiot. ?

Oh, please. They don't even begin to pay anything like an equivalent share of real taxes, and that still doesn't address the issue of blatantly flaunting their greed amid a worldwide economic crisis; a crisis they've gone a long way towards fomenting and sustaining.

[mvscal]

Sure it is. Those sorts of insane salaries and bonuses are entirely driven by profits, which are very much a function of supply and demand and the resultant selling prices these companies rig to keep those profits coming. Reduce the gross profit and you likely also reduce CEO and all other upper management compensation.

If you don't know anything about corporate management and operation, that's cool. It's generally a good idea to shut the fuck up if you don't because it makes you look like a fucking idiot when you try. See Nick Felchco for details.

http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/C ... -Statement

There is a finanical statement. Read it and wrap your head around it. Exxon paid $13.8 billion in SGA expense alone in 2012. Executive comp doesn't add up to a pisshole in a snowbank in the big equation. Don't what the fuck you're crying about anyway. Why shouldn't they get paid? You don't bleat a decibel when semi-literate niqqers make even more money than corporate CEOs to do nothing but run and jump for our amusement.

[mvscal]

Oh, please. They don't even begin to pay anything like an equivalent share of real taxes,

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? You mean the 31 billion dollar check they scratched for income tax wasn't real? Or it wasn't "equivalent" to...? Or what?

and that still doesn't address the issue of blatantly flaunting their greed amid a worldwide economic crisis;

What "greed" are you talking about and how, exactly, are they "flaunting" it? They netted less than 10% of gross sales. That's hardly "greedy" by any reckoning.

a crisis they've gone a long way towards fomenting and sustaining.

Pure, unadulterated horseshit.

[Van]

Love the way it always gets framed as an either/or deal, as if both the government and Big Oil can't be guilty of rigging the system. Somehow finding fault with one precludes finding fault with the other?

Since when?

[Mikey]

Finally got tired of the old Sonata a month or so ago. Peeling paint, AC needed a re-charge, made a horrible grinding noise going over bumps on cold mornings that new struts all around didn't fix.

Thought about getting one of those "clean diesel" V dubs but decided to stay American and got a Ford Fusion hybrid. Unfortunately I couldn't get smackaholic to help pay for it.

Averaging about 42 mpg now and getting better as the system gets broke in. Plus it's about the best handling and quietest car I've ever owned. Never had a Mercedes or a Beemer though.
Wags should be happy I bought American made in Mexico.

Dude, if you hadn't tapped me out with the MST, I woulda thrown you some coin for the fusion. The fusion is a damn nice rig and ford's hybri dsystem is pretty kick as.

Rack you for buyin' central Amurhkin'

BTW, my Sonata is still running like new. Oil changes and a set of brake pads is all it asks for. But that is likely because I bought the base 4 cylinder 5 speed. I assume you went with the V-6 auto being mr moneybags and all. Plus I think the V-6 has a slightly higher GVW which comes in handy when hauling around morbidly obese folk.

I liked my Sonata. No, I REALLY liked it (it was the V6). The wife hated it. She thought the seats were uncomfortable and the visibility was bad. The V6 has a shitload of power (245 HP) and it was fun to drive. I had over 110K miles on it and no problems mechanically but it was an embarrassment to drive around with the paint peeling off. Plus it made this weird grinding noise whenever going over bumps on cold mornings. It would go away after the car warmed up but going down our pothole pocked street leaving for work it sounded like the right front wheel was about to fall off. I paid almost a grand for new struts all around plus some kind of linkage in the front and it didn't solve the problem.

Long story short we were driving around LA (Norwalk actually) on an 80 degree day in March with no AC - had to keep the windows and sunroof open on the freeway - and that pretty much did it. We went to a Ford dealership in San Juan Capistrano while we were waiting for a Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks performance and traded the fucker in. Had to clean out the trunk, the back seat, glove box, etc. and drove a new car home. Best impulse buy I've ever made.

[mvscal]

Love the way it always gets framed as an either/or deal, as if both the government and Big Oil can't be guilty of rigging the system. Somehow finding fault with one precludes finding fault with the other?

Since when?

Still waiting for an explanation of how a 9.2% margin equates to "flaunting greed." They produce the single most vital product in the global economy and at a reasonable price. Is it really so far fetched that the compensation of their CEO is comparable to a shortstop for the Yankees?

I'm struggling to find the outrage here...

[mvscal]

an 80 degree day in March with no AC - had to keep the windows and sunroof open on the freeway

...the horror...the horror

[Mikey]

an 80 degree day in March with no AC - had to keep the windows and sunroof open on the freeway

...the horror...the horror

I've driven back from Vegas when it was 115 deg in Baker with the windows open and a pile of ice under my baseball cap.

The OL was very uncomfortable. I got a new set of wheels and wasn't about to argue. Too loudly.

[LTS TRN 2]

Love the way it always gets framed as an either/or deal, as if both the government and Big Oil can't be guilty of rigging the system. Somehow finding fault with one precludes finding fault with the other?

Since when?

Still waiting for an explanation of how a 9.2% margin equates to "flaunting greed." They produce the single most vital product in the global economy and at a reasonable price. Is it really so far fetched that the compensation of their CEO is comparable to a shortstop for the Yankees?

I'm struggling to find the outrage here...

We're still waiting for you to exhibit some sign of being human--as opposed to your usual caricature Zio-puppet, Hannity-parrot, bunkered racist utterly selfish little creep. And now you're attempting to defend the shameless tax-dodging of the corporate plutocrats? C'mon, you've been crushed on every topic upon which you've spewed your toxic bile. Oh, okay...

Here's how a big oil company avoids paying taxes (and coddles its piggy CEOs :wink: )

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Even the notion that a total slime stain like you could effectively argue for the rightness of Inhofe and the Zionazis is itself a plain gob of dried vomit on a desolate street curb...in the rain.

[Left Seater]

Van, really? we expect idiotic takes from LTS but not you.

The exec comp for Big Oil as a percentage of sales is one of the lowest of Fortune 500 companies. Hell, they are nowhere near the top of the list of exec comp yet lead companies with the highest sales.

As for their profits of $.10 on a $1.00 that you claim is too much, what should their profits be? How much is enough? Why only the outrage at Big Oil and not those making huge profit margins?

[Van]

Again, why do you make it an either/or deal? I don't. I also differentiate between oil and other companies because oil is a necessity-by-design product whereas Pepsi isn't. Oil is also subsidized by the government, and I don't believe for one second any of the self-serving financial reports filed by/on behalf of Big Oil.

[Left Seater]

Again, so what percentage of profit is acceptable? Clearly you think 10% is far to high.


So Oil get some subsidies, plenty of companies do. Why single out Oil?

[Van]

Clearly I don't believe their self-serving 10% estimate.

[Left Seater]

Might as well start with SEC filings.

And with all the hatred of Oil companies don't you think there are plenty of LTS's buddies going thru everything with a fine toothed comb?


Also, to repeat the subsidies question, why single Big Oil out for their subsidies?

[R-Jack]

Also, to repeat the subsidies question, why single Big Oil out for their subsidies?

A better question would be why do they need to be subsidized?

[mvscal]

Clearly I don't believe their self-serving 10% estimate.

Clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The number wasn't an estimate. Those are actuals. Oh, and, publishing "self-serving" financial statements is punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Those are the numbers. Deal with them, idiot.

[mvscal]

Also, to repeat the subsidies question, why single Big Oil out for their subsidies?

A better question would be why do they need to be subsidized?

"Big" oil isn't subsidized.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackm ... r-big-oil/

[R-Jack]

Take it up with Lefty. He's defending their subsidiary to the death.

[LTS TRN 2]

Take it up with Lefty. He's defending their subsidiary to the death.

Yeah, L-seater has no doubt been working up a dance routine for Atlas Shrugged--The Musical. I mean, c'mon, just put on a cheerleaders dress and start jumping about excitedly at the prospect of an unfettered Free Market allowing Exxon to intimidate reporters after its "newly refurbished" pipeline splits open like a roasted sausage.

As to how the oil giants avoid taxes, it's not too complicated...or is it?

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes. The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

Pretty clever, eh? The tiny office on a tiny island with licenses of huge corporations on the wall.

[mvscal]

As to how the oil giants avoid taxes, it's not too complicated...or is it?

Which part of the numbers being right in front of your stupid, fucking face are you struggling with?

[Left Seater]

Do you even know what those subsidies are? Or more likely are you just repeating talking points you heard somewhere?

Let's use the ultra left group Oil Change International's (OCI) definition of a subsidy:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that (1)lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, (2)raises the price received by energy producers or (3)lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Let's also use the Left's/Democrat's number of $4.5 Billion in annual subsidies to Big Oil.

One of the biggest annual subsidies is a tax deduction outlined in Sect 199 of the Tax Code. This tax deduction was the result of the 2004 American Job Creation Act. Besides manufacturing it also allows the deduction for food production, film making, software development, publishing, utilities (including wind and solar) and construction. CNN valued this deduction for oil companies at $1.7 Billion in 2010. Eliminating this deduction could cause more production to shift overseas, therefore sending jobs overseas. The exact reason this bill was passed, with votes from Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Tom Daschle and Russ Feingold.

The second largest tax break isn't actually for Big Oil directly, although they benefit from additional sales due to the tax rebates given to farmers. OCI estimates that about $950 Million annually goes uncollected in gas tax due to deductions farmers can take in their fuel usage. Farmers have argued successfully that since their equipment doesn't use roads they shouldn't have to pay the tax on the fuel they use in their farm equipment. Eliminate this and food costs rise tomorrow.

The next largest credit for Big Oil comes from foreign tax credits. This same credit is available to all companies in the US. CNN also estimates this as an $850 Million annual tax break.

OCI also points out that another very large oil subsidy is in fact a Democratic favorite, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. OCI estimates this amounts to an annual subsidy to Big Oil in the amount of $580 Million.

Add all those number up and you are already over $4 Billion in annual subsidies. Which of those do you suggest we eliminate? If we eliminate the first or third from above do we just do it for Big Oil and leave the tax breaks in place for software companies and film makers? If so, how much will this increase our reliance on imported oil? Do we remove the break for farmers or the poor?

Finally, why are we so worked up about the profits of big oil but not other companies? If we look at profits as a percentage of revenue Big Oil isn't anywhere near the top. Just a quick look at cnn/money profits as a percentage of revenue reveals:

Microsoft 33.1%
Apple 23.9%
Coke 18.4%
Chase 17.1%
Ford 14.8%
Chevron 10.9%
Exxon 9.1%
Conoco 5.2%

So are you also against the estimated $2.5 Billion in annual subsidies to software and internet companies? What about the $1 Billion in annual subsidies to film makers?

[Left Seater]

Where is the outrage towards Apple?

They are flush with cash, somewhere north of $140 Billion in cash today. Yet they issued bonds to pay dividends to their share holders. Why? Taxes. With most of their money held outside of the US they would face huge income tax bills if they used any of that money to pay the dividend as it would have to come back to the US first. Somewhere between $20 and $30 Billion would be due in income tax.

Where is the outrage towards Apple from certain posters on this board, certain media types, Democrats in Congress and the President? If Oil shouldn't get this benefit why should Apple? What exactly is different?

[LTS TRN 2]

I'm in on the outrage. Apple, and Facebook, and other high tech companies are every bit as culpable as the oil giants and banking conglomerates in the utterly destructive practice of capital flight. But, Apple isn't undermining Climate Change initiatives and discussion. Facebook isn't threatening reporters with arrest for investigating its fuck ups. Microsoft isn't intentionally selling billions in toxic bonds to their colleagues. The capital flight is important, but it's not the primary problem.