exxon posts record profit

[topless_mike]

story (http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; earns $1,300 a second in 2007

$1300 per second? shit thats more than i make in 40 hours.
hey- good for them.

[Jujubees2]

Wow, looks like the tax breaks work! Let's give them more!!!!

[GvacMobile]

Heartless cocksuckers.

My contempt for giant corporations grows each and every day.

That's why I no longer have an ounce of faith in our political system and draw no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Each and every one of those scumbags enters office beholden to at least one of these Satannic companies and I've given up believing they give a flying fuck about this country or its people.

[topless_mike]

Heartless cocksuckers.

My contempt for giant corporations grows each and every day.

That's why I no longer have an ounce of faith in our political system and draw no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Each and every one of those scumbags enters office beholden to at least one of these Satannic companies and I've given up believing they give a flying fuck about this country or its people.

:thumbup:

[MadMatt]

Heartless cocksuckers.

My contempt for giant corporations grows each and every day.

That's why I no longer have an ounce of faith in our political system and draw no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Each and every one of those scumbags enters office beholden to at least one of these Satannic companies and I've given up believing they give a flying fuck about this country or its people.

I'm with you Bro.

I f-ing HATE the freaking oil companies and the giant corporations in general. I can't even talk about them without getting super-frustrated.

[A.J.]

Fuck 'em. I get my gas at BP.

[Drunky McBetidont]

hey, maybe if we all don't buy gas on the same day then.....

i hope they all end up with cancer of the asshole and die a slow painful death. fuck em

[donnie_darko]

i can't wait till a couple million years and some new race is powering their vehicles on our remains!! that'll show em!

[keithy_19]

i can't wait till a couple million years and some new race is powering their vehicles on our remains!! that'll show em!

There was a guy in california who worked at a garage and was able to make a car run using nothing but carbon dioxide.


Of course that's a lie, but imagine if it wasn't.

[Death Metal Moe]

All these gas companies suck cock.

I hope they and their families die.

[Jujubees2]

There was a guy in california who worked at a garage and was able to make a car run using nothing but carbon dioxide.


Of course that's a lie, but imagine if it wasn't.

Hyde: I had a dream of a car that ran on water.

Fez: Isn't that called a boat?

[MadMatt]

That $11.7 Billion was in QUARTERLY profit - Exxon's ANNUAL profit was a record $40.6 Billion. (documentation (http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/exxon-posts-record-4q-2007-profits/n20080201095209990002))

And think about it - that isn't total sales, it is just PROFIT. Their overall sales topped $404.5 Billion.

This is another article from US News (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html), and the comparison is staggering:

Exxon nation. If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar—two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.

Absolutely mind boggling... :furious:

[epo]

What's crazy is when the oil companies try to use the "lack of refineries" argument for rising consumer costs.

So you made $40 Billion last year in net profits and you can't afford to build a new refinery? And you need tax breaks?

I can't wait until we learn to use our own urine to fuel our vehicles. You'll see!

[topless_mike]

What's crazy is when the oil companies try to use the "lack of refineries" argument for rising consumer costs.

So you made $40 Billion last year in net profits and you can't afford to build a new refinery? And you need tax breaks?

my only question is where do you build a new refinery?
and by the time you get past all this red tape govt bullshit and get it built, it will be outdated.

edit: in addition to the red tape, dont forget to add the tree huggers and NIMBY's

[epo]

my only question is where do you build a new refinery?
and by the time you get past all this red tape govt bullshit and get it built, it will be outdated.

edit: in addition to the red tape, dont forget to add the tree huggers and NIMBY's

With $40 Billion for that single company in a year...they could afford to build a very environmentally friendly refinery or two.

This is not a case for blaming do-gooders. They are not the issue.

[topless_mike]

With $40 Billion for that single company in a year...they could afford to build a very environmentally friendly refinery or two.



i agree. but i dont think they are willing to pony-up and spend the extra couple of dollars.
besides. with everyone screaming for alternative fuels.

although... a refinery and refine anything, just needs to be adapted.

[epo]

i agree. but i dont think they are willing to pony-up and spend the extra couple of dollars.
besides. with everyone screaming for alternative fuels.

although... a refinery and refine anything, just needs to be adapted.

The tragedy for many of these energy companies will eventually come with alternative fuels. The ones that aren't re-investing and currently finding eco-friendly solutions are going to be left out when the conversions are made.

Then you'll hear the funniest/saddest screaming about the marketplace & their declining markets.

[topless_mike]

The tragedy for many of these energy companies will eventually come with alternative fuels. The ones that aren't re-investing and currently finding eco-friendly solutions are going to be left out when the conversions are made.

Then you'll hear the funniest/saddest screaming about the marketplace & their declining markets.

:thumbup:

[high fly]

my only question is where do you build a new refinery?
and by the time you get past all this red tape govt bullshit and get it built, it will be outdated.

edit: in addition to the red tape, dont forget to add the tree huggers and NIMBY's

One place to build a refinery was on a military base the military was closing down, I believe in southern Mississippi, perhaps Keesler AFB.

In one of the few things they got right, the Bush administration offered to give the land to the oil companies for a refinery, and with it a government priority, red tape could have been cut through. The oil companies turned them down.

There may be other excuses you can make for big oil, topless, but these aren't among them.



We have seen that markets respond to current events, and driving up tension in the Middle East increases the price of oil.
I can't help but wonder how much profit the Bush and Cheney families have made off the Iraq debacle and the saber-rattling with Iran.

I'd sure like to see someone interviewing Bush ask him if, since his policies were a large part in raising these profits, if, after he leaves office and he has access to his portfolio again, whether he would give away the profits he has made on whatever oil stocks he owns.
Same with "Whatta" Dick Cheney.........

[NortonRules]

Heartless cocksuckers.

My contempt for giant corporations grows each and every day.

That's why I no longer have an ounce of faith in our political system and draw no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Each and every one of those scumbags enters office beholden to at least one of these Satannic companies and I've given up believing they give a flying fuck about this country or its people.

You should stick it to 'em and stop buying gas if you feel so strongly about it.

[high fly]

You should stick it to 'em and stop buying gas if you feel so strongly about it.

A more reasonable approach would be a return of the windfall profits tax.

[MadMatt]

You should stick it to 'em and stop buying gas if you feel so strongly about it.

Thanks for the constructive commentary.

My question is how can you NOT be pissed at what amounts to wartime profiteering? The economy is sliding into recession, oil prices are climbing, and the people who could be doing something about it are just giving us the finger and counting their money.

I know, I know - free market economy, capitalism, and Adam Smith. Point taken. However, in the 1930's the United States started to add many "Socialist" principles and programs which following generations have expanded and institutionalized (ex: Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, etc.).

There is obvious precedent for curtailing (not removing, but curtailing) the advantages given to the oil industry in favor of the public good.

[oh_kee_pa]

whats funny is how mad you all get....
there are two reasons this happens...
1 - people are driving more... why is this exxon's fault?
2 - they put a percentage on what they pay...
so, if they want to make 10% above what they pay, lets do the math...
if they pay $1.00 for X amount of oil, now add 10% we are being charged a dollar 1.10.
But, if they pay $2.00 for X amount of oil, add our 10% and you see they make 20 cents.

It's simply running a business.

The only injustice in this world is letting a sucker keep his money

[FUNKMAN]

and they still owe 6 Billion for the Exxon-Valdez spill that they still have tied-up in court

1989

[high fly]

Thanks for the constructive commentary.

My question is how can you NOT be pissed at what amounts to wartime profiteering? The economy is sliding into recession, oil prices are climbing, and the people who could be doing something about it are just giving us the finger and counting their money.

I know, I know - free market economy, capitalism, and Adam Smith. Point taken. However, in the 1930's the United States started to add many "Socialist" principles and programs which following generations have expanded and institutionalized (ex: Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, etc.).

There is obvious precedent for curtailing (not removing, but curtailing) the advantages given to the oil industry in favor of the public good.


The windfall profits tax took those profits away from the greedy bastards....

[MadMatt]

whats funny is how mad you all get....
there are two reasons this happens...
1 - people are driving more... why is this exxon's fault?
2 - they put a percentage on what they pay...
so, if they want to make 10% above what they pay, lets do the math...
if they pay $1.00 for X amount of oil, now add 10% we are being charged a dollar 1.10.
But, if they pay $2.00 for X amount of oil, add our 10% and you see they make 20 cents.

It's simply running a business.

The only injustice in this world is letting a sucker keep his money

But we HAVE to use gasoline powered vehicles - there aren't any other (or at least enough) viable options yet. The only way to get that ball rolling in the current environment is for the government to get behind an alternative fuel+vehicle program and offer incentives to both producers and consumers.

However, that isn't going to happen because the oil industry has too much power and influence. And I am not a tin-foil hat wearing eco-zombie - I realize that we are in a bed that we all helped to make. But several European governments are blazing the way in government subsidized alternative fuel research and development; the US needs to take notice and support the same kinds of initiatives.

And to bring up the point again, the oil companies are essentially profiteering during wartime. Cutting their percentages minimally would help the general public while still providing Billions of dollars in profits. Even a 1% cut would put more than $406 Million dollars back in our collective pocket and the oil companies would still have $40.1 Billion dollars in profits to play with.

If anything, the massive, record setting profits achieved while the US economy is in a downward slide prove that the oil companies do not need government subsidies or tax breaks to remain profitable.

[Jujubees2]

whats funny is how mad you all get....
there are two reasons this happens...
1 - people are driving more... why is this exxon's fault?
2 - they put a percentage on what they pay...
so, if they want to make 10% above what they pay, lets do the math...
if they pay $1.00 for X amount of oil, now add 10% we are being charged a dollar 1.10.
But, if they pay $2.00 for X amount of oil, add our 10% and you see they make 20 cents.

It's simply running a business.

The only injustice in this world is letting a sucker keep his money

Yeah but the big question is why does Big Oil get tax breaks? It looks like they could function just fine without them.

[high fly]

Windfall profits tax

[spoon]

Heartless cocksuckers.

My contempt for giant corporations grows each and every day.

That's why I no longer have an ounce of faith in our political system and draw no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Each and every one of those scumbags enters office beholden to at least one of these Satannic companies and I've given up believing they give a flying fuck about this country or its people.

Hilarious Greg!

Before I read your post I flipped out about the first one and said the same shit to my girl and got all pissed off again. I guess we should raise subsidies to these awesome companies in need like Exxon, and fuck those pesky poor and those who would like to help them. :wallbash:

[spoon]

All these gas companies suck cock.

I hope they and their families die.

Now I'm simply convinced your fucking 5 years old.

[spoon]

The tragedy for many of these energy companies will eventually come with alternative fuels. The ones that aren't re-investing and currently finding eco-friendly solutions are going to be left out when the conversions are made.

Then you'll hear the funniest/saddest screaming about the marketplace & their declining markets.

I wish, but do you really think they'll let this happen? I can promise you they will be involved when it happens.....or should I say, when they let it happen.

[spoon]

One place to build a refinery was on a military base the military was closing down, I believe in southern Mississippi, perhaps Keesler AFB.

In one of the few things they got right, the Bush administration offered to give the land to the oil companies for a refinery, and with it a government priority, red tape could have been cut through. The oil companies turned them down.

There may be other excuses you can make for big oil, topless, but these aren't among them.



We have seen that markets respond to current events, and driving up tension in the Middle East increases the price of oil.
I can't help but wonder how much profit the Bush and Cheney families have made off the Iraq debacle and the saber-rattling with Iran.

I'd sure like to see someone interviewing Bush ask him if, since his policies were a large part in raising these profits, if, after he leaves office and he has access to his portfolio again, whether he would give away the profits he has made on whatever oil stocks he owns.
Same with "Whatta" Dick Cheney.........

My question is why EVER give land to a company with that much money? Their profits are in listed in the fucking billions...on the quarter!! They're 1/10 the way to a TRILLION. We're getting close to made up names with these numbers, it's fucking insane. And what has EXXON ever done for the world, humanity? Oh yah, pasted the Alaskan coast with oil. Nice.

[spoon]

You should stick it to 'em and stop buying gas if you feel so strongly about it.

A more reasonable approach would be a return of the windfall profits tax.

Exactly. Yet we're going the other way which is sad.

[spoon]

Thanks for the constructive commentary.

My question is how can you NOT be pissed at what amounts to wartime profiteering? The economy is sliding into recession, oil prices are climbing, and the people who could be doing something about it are just giving us the finger and counting their money.

I know, I know - free market economy, capitalism, and Adam Smith. Point taken. However, in the 1930's the United States started to add many "Socialist" principles and programs which following generations have expanded and institutionalized (ex: Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, etc.).

There is obvious precedent for curtailing (not removing, but curtailing) the advantages given to the oil industry in favor of the public good.

Great post. I've always said we're living in the extreme years of capitalism gone amuck. We actually need a healthy mix of a capitalist market with some socialist policy to balance it. We all too often try to pigeon-hole a theory or form of thinking by it's extreme ideals, and the repubs love to call anyone a commie for thinking there is some good, any good in socialist ideas. Well I'm sorry, if you care at all about society and your neighbors, you have some socialist ideals within you.

[MHasegawa]

shut up already

[spoon]

shut up already

Thanks buddy. No more rides for you!

[TeeBone]

All of our problems would have been solved by now if nuclear technology would have had the backing to advance.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..............

I also find it very amusing when people blame oil companies solely for not producing more refineries.
The mind-narrowing of America is in Full Bloom.

[underdog]

All of our problems would have been solved by now if nuclear technology would have had the backing to advance.

The problem with nuclear technology is that it has this awful stigma attached to it. No one wants anything to do with a nuclear reactor, whether they know the facts or not.

[Jujubees2]

The problem with nuclear technology is that it has this awful stigma attached to it. No one wants anything to do with a nuclear reactor, whether they know the facts or not.

There's also that little problem about what to do with the waste which will remain radioactive for years.

[underdog]

There's also that little problem about what to do with the waste which will remain radioactive for years.

There's a clean up problem with any sort of current energy technology. The others also burn a lot dirtier.

[Jujubees2]

There's a clean up problem with any sort of current energy technology. The others also burn a lot dirtier.

Solar? Wind?

[Death Metal Moe]

Now I'm simply convinced your fucking 5 year olds.

I should be so lucky.

[oh_kee_pa]

But we HAVE to use gasoline powered vehicles - there aren't any other (or at least enough) viable options yet. The only way to get that ball rolling in the current environment is for the government to get behind an alternative fuel+vehicle program and offer incentives to both producers and consumers.

However, that isn't going to happen because the oil industry has too much power and influence. And I am not a tin-foil hat wearing eco-zombie - I realize that we are in a bed that we all helped to make. But several European governments are blazing the way in government subsidized alternative fuel research and development; the US needs to take notice and support the same kinds of initiatives.

And to bring up the point again, the oil companies are essentially profiteering during wartime. Cutting their percentages minimally would help the general public while still providing Billions of dollars in profits. Even a 1% cut would put more than $406 Million dollars back in our collective pocket and the oil companies would still have $40.1 Billion dollars in profits to play with.

If anything, the massive, record setting profits achieved while the US economy is in a downward slide prove that the oil companies do not need government subsidies or tax breaks to remain profitable.

But why is this exxons fault? They provide a product that will eventually run out. There job is to make as much money on this product before it runs out.

What is your profession sir?

[Bulldogcakes]

I don't get the hating here. Did any of you complain when they were losing money like crazy in the early 90's when gas was 1.25 a gallon? Of course not.

Something tells me all you folks wouldn't hate Exxon if you worked for them or owned some stock.

[Jujubees2]

But why is this exxons fault? They provide a product that will eventually run out. There job is to make as much money on this product before it runs out.

What is your profession sir?

It's not that they are making obscene amounts of money it's that they are also getting huge tax breaks from the US government, a government which has been run into the ground by a misplaced war and crazy spending by a Republican president.

[Gvac]

I don't get the hating here. Did any of you complain when they were losing money like crazy in the early 90's when gas was 1.25 a gallon? Of course not.

Something tells me all you folks wouldn't hate Exxon if you worked for them or owned some stock.

I wouldn't work for them for all the tea in China. Trust me.

Corporations like Exxon are the closest thing to evil incarnate that there is in this world. And if they were "losing money like crazy" in the 90's how come they didn't go belly up? How come their CEO's continued to get multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses?

When corporations claim they've 'lost' money it's called creative bookkeeping. They make 40 million dollars profit one year, 35 million the next, and they claim they "lost" 5 million dollars.

[Recyclerz]

That $11.7 Billion was in QUARTERLY profit - Exxon's ANNUAL profit was a record $40.6 Billion. (documentation (http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/exxon-posts-record-4q-2007-profits/n20080201095209990002))

And think about it - that isn't total sales, it is just PROFIT. Their overall sales topped $404.5 Billion.

This is another article from US News (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html), and the comparison is staggering:

Exxon nation. If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar—two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.

Absolutely mind boggling... :furious:

I realize this board isn't really a forum for egghead discussions for various models of economic polities but I feel obligated to make my standard "Globalization - live it or leave it" speech one more time.

Globalization is the fundamental economic force of our times, much like the development of mass production changed the world 100 years ago. You can choose to like it or not, you can vote Republican or Democratic, Libertarian or Socialist Workers Party, you can rant and/or rave or you can lie down on the floor of an English pub with a paper bag over your head but you're not going to change it. Global corporations are going to be controlling the economic decisions that affect us all for the rest of our lives and that of our children's and there are only limited steps that any government can take to affect them. I looked at Exxon's earnings release and did a few quick calculations and it appears that about 3/4 of Exxon's profits came from non-US operations. Can we tax those windfalls? Probably not.

I don't think our existing political templates adequately address the issues that this new economic reality presents to us. The "Cut Taxes" v. "Soak The Rich" debate is almost completely irrelevant to the new model. We've got to find some new thinkers who can come up with new ways of analyzing the challenges we face in trying to maintain our standard of living, which doesn't look like it is going to be very easy. :glurps:

[TeeBone]

It's not that they are making obscene amounts of money it's that they are also getting huge tax breaks from the US government, a government which has been run into the ground by a misplaced war and crazy spending by a Republican president.

I fear your brain may be too thoroughly washed by cable news services to participate in an honest conversation about depleting fuel sources.

[Jughead]

Matty Just congrats from me...You are a very good poster on here I enjoy reading your wit...You have a great way with the written word I wish i was as good...Jug

[Bulldogcakes]

It's not that they are making obscene amounts of money it's that they are also getting huge tax breaks from the US government, a government which has been run into the ground by a misplaced war and crazy spending by a Republican president.

I'm not a big fan of corporate tax breaks, but in general the rationalization behind them is that the Government has added costs (environmental regulations, laws which allow endless expensive construction delays, etc) that make something either too risky or unprofitable for them. So they ask the Feds for tax breaks to offest the added costs and have the venture make more sense. Or the Feds offer it as an enticement to get them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, like in this case open new refineries. Without them, businesses will simply not open these facilities. And they haven't, its been 20 years since any new refineries have been opened in the US. That tells you business conditions make it not worth it to do so.

Here's a local NYC example on corporate tax breaks. When Bloomberg raised the parking tickets almost 100%, UPS, FedEX and other delivery companies approached the Mayor and said the increase would force them to pull out of the NYC market entirely. They work on slim margins to begin with, and most trucks recieve multiple tickets daily, most of which are unavoidable if they are to run their business. Passing along the cost would force many customers elsewhere, hurting them further. So they got together and came up with a parking pass where companies with large fleets could pay $5000 per truck annually and tickets above that amount would be reduced or dismissed. So everyone went on with business as usual. Had Bloomberg told them to fuck off, not only would those companies have left town, but given how many other businesses rely on them it would have forced others to close. And made NYC in general a lousy place to do business for many others. Try to convince a Fortune 500 company to move their headquarters to NYC if they cant get a fucking package delivered.

This is why some of us are Libertarians at heart. This is all such a mess.

[Bulldogcakes]

When corporations claim they've 'lost' money it's called creative bookkeeping. They make 40 million dollars profit one year, 35 million the next, and they claim they "lost" 5 million dollars.


You heard it here first people. No company has ever lost money. Its all creative bookeeping.

[SatCam]

It's our fault


for relying so heavily on oil.


and the government isnt going to do shit to find better energy sources. They have shown they don't give a shit, and it really isnt their job in the first place

[underdog]

Solar? Wind?

I should have said major energy technologies. I wish solar and wind were larger providers of energy.

You heard it here first people. No company has ever lost money. Its all creative bookeeping.

Companies lose money. But gas companies? Come on. There's no fucking way Exxon loses money or has lost money. Gas is basically a necessity. Whatever they charge, people will pay. If they started to lose a cent, they could raise gas prices up 1/10 of a cent and recoup the loss in milliseconds.

[high fly]

Had we followed Jimmy Carter's plan, we would be independent of MidEast oil and not have to be involved in that region at all, which would remove us as a target of the jihadist terrorists.

We need a crash program to develop alternate engines for automobiles, including subsidies to make it affordable until the whole nation has changed over.

I support programs like ethanol only as a bridge to the next power source.

I think we can do it in 10 years if we apply ourselves the way we did to get to the Moon in the 60s.

I'd be willing to pay a gas tax of a couple bucks a gallon to help us get there.

[TeeBone]

Gas is basically a necessity.


Basically ?!?!
Its an absolute until its gone.

[Patron Saint of AFF]

The oil companies are greedy bastards.

[scottinnj]

The ones that aren't re-investing and currently finding eco-friendly solutions are going to be left out when the conversions are made.



You hit the nail with that statement, but you glanced it. The ones who are "investing" in eco-freindly technology and alternative fuels are spending enough to justify commercials saying how good they are. BP is the biggest offender of this tactic.

Most of the major oil companies are just saying "fuck it" to the public and are gouging us for all they can get, because they know ethanol, hydrogen and electric cars are what the public wants, and their dominance in the energy market will be eliminated.

In other words, you are right: the ones that aren't re-investing and trying to find alternative energy sources will be eliminated. It's just that they already know that, and they don't give a fuck. Get it while the getting is good, and then leave the energy market. Fuck the public and the investors.

[scottinnj]

There's also that little problem about what to do with the waste which will remain radioactive for years.

It can be recycled and reused. If anything, when the rods (hee hee, I said rods!) are depleted to the point where they can't power a city-sized reactor, give them to the universities and let the egg heads invent nuclear cars and popcorn machines.

Hell, my microwave ain't fast enough for me. I'm very impatient. Give one to me so I can heat up my Spaghettios in 30 seconds instead of that long and boring "quick minute" feature.

[underdog]

Basically ?!?!
Its an absolute until its gone.

I went with basically because it's not air or water.

[TeeBone]

I went with basically because it's not air or water.

Gotcha.
Fair enough.
Have a great weekend.

[sailor]

so, the solution to a possible coming recession is to want big companies to have less growth and make less money. isn't that what a recession is?

[TeeBone]

A Recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). It is also considered the sum of value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.
The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:
GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

I wanted to put this on for the Laymen to better understand the term, Recession.

[scottinnj]

A little recession is good every now and then.

[high fly]

A Recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). It is also considered the sum of value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.
The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:
GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

I wanted to put this on for the Laymen to better understand the term, Recession.





If we have one, it will be the 5th in a row that took place on the watch of a Republican president.
As I recall, the worst since the Great Depression was the one brought on by Reaganomics in the early 80s. It featured your standard GOP record-sized deficits as well as unemployment in double-digits.

[Bulldogcakes]

so, the solution to a possible coming recession is to want big companies to have less growth and make less money. isn't that what a recession is?

I love you.

[scottinnj]

If we have one, it will be the 5th in a row that took place on the watch of a Republican president.
As I recall, the worst since the Great Depression was the one brought on by Reaganomics in the early 80s. It featured your standard GOP record-sized deficits as well as unemployment in double-digits.

Numbers, please? And didn't the budgets get passed by a Democrat controlled Ways and Means committee? And isn't it true that the first balanced budget get passed by a Republican controlled Ways and Means committee?

And let's speak about earmarks, for a second. Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise the end of earmarks, yet her congress still continues to attach them willy-nilly to budgets?

Let's face it. The Republican Party has lost it's reputation of being fiscally responsible since President Bush lost his veto pen 7 years ago. But the Democrats never had the rep to begin with.


Edit: Wait a minute. Why are we arguing this garbage in the Exxon thread? Aren't we supposed to be comparing pitchfork models and sharing the best ways to light torches?
Aren't we on a mission to bring down the Exxon Machine?

[spoon]

It's our fault


for relying so heavily on oil.


and the government isnt going to do shit to find better energy sources. They have shown they don't give a shit, and it really isnt their job in the first place

Not so. For a country to make such a radical change such as energy use, the government usually needs to take steps and or help push it forward. The issue here is the link between big oil and all (both sides, the house, the senate and the president) aspects of the US government. As they make money, you can bet people in our government make money...and I'm not just speaking in terms of stocks and dividends. Look how little progress we've even made in terms of gas and mileage in the last few decades. Almost nothing has changes and that's simply not normal. The common family doesn't have the time or money to make these type changes or transitions until it's more readily available and cheaper. That's where the government needs to spend funds, not for old forms, but progression. However, there's no money in this yet and hence we continually fall behind in this, stem cell research, genetic research and so many other areas. We aren't even close to the cutting edge of technology in the public sector, let alone with research. Anyone who has been to Europe recently realize how backward our US phone, internet, infrastructure, public transportation and so much more are.

[spoon]

You heard it here first people. No company has ever lost money. Its all creative bookeeping.

Yah that's what he was saying ASS! You know EXACTLY what he meant. And your UPS example was sooooooo off base with the actual conversation it's comical. Keep convincing yourself, because you've never convinced a soul outside this.

[spoon]

Had we followed Jimmy Carter's plan, we would be independent of MidEast oil and not have to be involved in that region at all, which would remove us as a target of the jihadist terrorists.

We need a crash program to develop alternate engines for automobiles, including subsidies to make it affordable until the whole nation has changed over.

I support programs like ethanol only as a bridge to the next power source.

I think we can do it in 10 years if we apply ourselves the way we did to get to the Moon in the 60s.

I'd be willing to pay a gas tax of a couple bucks a gallon to help us get there.

Great point on the Carter plan, but why did it get destroyed? Hmmm, let me think. Oh yah, Regan and his ties to the auto industry led him to do their bidding at the needs of a few to hurt the needs of the country. Say what you will, but our plan for miles per gallon plan for 2020 would have been reached YEARS ago if this plan was left alone. As if we couldn't have found a better way to help the auto industry back then. Perhaps like creating a better car and hell a more efficient vehicle would have been a nice step.

My problem with ethanol is that the same organizations in oil have almost total control here again. It also drives the price of the corn crop up to huge levels hurting farmer/ranch owners trying to feed their animals. Hence they continue to use more and more processed foods which include dead animals, even those that died of disease. This is where/why many believe mad cow came from and we are all exposed to it more then you can even think. Also, as it becomes more and more used, this is becoming the number 1 threat to the rain forest as miles of land have already been stripped by the local governments to grow this exact crop due to its increasing value and ease.

Just thought I'd add some other factors on ethanol and how it's not just a simple answer to replace oil.

[Bulldogcakes]

Yah that's what he was saying ASS! You know EXACTLY what he meant. And your UPS example was sooooooo off base with the actual conversation it's comical.

Oh really? Unlike you, I'm going to actually stick with the facts and not just do hit and run personal attacks with nothing whatsoever to support it. First off, the only significant difference with the UPS example is one is Federal and one is local. From a legal standpoint, its still the public sector and the private sector getting together and making a deal circumventing a policy. For the average citizen, he/she still ends up paying a higher rate than the corporate fleets do. Perfect correlation on every meaningful aspect of this discussion.

On to the quote. Here's what GVAC said
Originally Posted by Gvac
When corporations claim they've 'lost' money it's called creative bookkeeping. They make 40 million dollars profit one year, 35 million the next, and they claim they "lost" 5 million dollars.


Here's what I said
You heard it here first people. No company has ever lost money. Its all creative bookeeping.

Now take GVAC's post and and mine and show the class where they differ. Not what you think he meant, but use the actual text.

Keep convincing yourself, because you've never convinced a soul outside this.

Those voices in your head are talking about you, not me.

[A.J.]

Great point on the Carter plan, but why did it get destroyed? Hmmm, let me think. Oh yah, Regan and his ties to the auto industry led him to do their bidding at the needs of a few to hurt the needs of the country. Say what you will, but our plan for miles per gallon plan for 2020 would have been reached YEARS ago if this plan was left alone.

See also:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/dingell.jpg

[scottinnj]

Great point on the Carter plan, but why did it get destroyed? Hmmm, let me think. Oh yah, Regan and his ties to the auto industry led him to do their bidding at the needs of a few to hurt the needs of the country.

How is this Reagan's fault, and show me these "ties" to the auto industry he had that were so evil. Every president has "ties" to the auto industry. It's the responsiblity of the president, and congress to make sure these industries have an enviroment where they can compete. I swear to god, according to you EVERYTHING wrong with this country is Reagan's fault. Jesus H FUCKING CHRIST ON THE CROSS, do you remember the state of the American Auto Industry coming out of the Carter presidency?


THE CARS WERE SHITTY
THE JAPS WERE COMING ON STRONG
THE UAW WAS BEING A BUNCH OF DICKS

You should be THANKING Reagan for the jobs saved and created by giving Detroit a break.

And there was no way emissions could have been done better back then. TBI fuel injection was still 2 years away in 1980 and the "electronics" in the cars had the computing power of a Timex watch.

NOT EVERYTHING WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE FAULT OF THE PRESIDENT, no matter which one it is.

[spoon]

Yep, bc that's what I said, it's all the president's fault. Why even argue? The simple fact that there was an agreement on estimated miles per gallon standards under Carter and he was trying to get the industry to sit up and fly right. Instead, the Reagan admin came in and destroyed it due to oil ties and in fact enacting a short-term solution to one issue (auto industries problems) and helping create another one (environment and gas efficiency) over the long term. Thank Reagan!!?!?!? Fuck that and you.

[spoon]

Oh really? Unlike you, I'm going to actually stick with the facts and not just do hit and run personal attacks with nothing whatsoever to support it. First off, the only significant difference with the UPS example is one is Federal and one is local. From a legal standpoint, its still the public sector and the private sector getting together and making a deal circumventing a policy. For the average citizen, he/she still ends up paying a higher rate than the corporate fleets do. Perfect correlation on every meaningful aspect of this discussion.
--------------------------------------------------
On to the quote. Here's what GVAC said


Here's what I said


Now take GVAC's post and and mine and show the class where they differ. Not what you think he meant, but use the actual text.
--------------------------------------------------

Those voices in your head are talking about you, not me.


First, if you can't understand Gvac point ur a fucking idiot. Stop twisting everything to make false points. It's yankee thread all over again in here. Who backed you in there? Not a fucking soul.

As for your story on UPS, way to recycle an issue talked about on both Hannity and Rush. Do you ever think for yourself? I heard them use this spin as you are now to try to show the need for these type programs. The difference here is that you are talking fines, not tax money. You are helping a company avoid excess fines in order to make a company on "tight profit margins" viable. Not giving a company bringing in record profits (not for their industry, but for throughout the fucking world) our tax dollars, not to mention the world economy we live in. By the other poster's calculations, we should only give 1/4 all funds to help, and 3/4 from the rest of the world. I doubt very much this holds true.

And tie in how companies absolutely RAPE and Pillage other nations such as those in South America and Africa, it's no wonder they're hated all over the world. Just like in most cases, the only ones that profit are the company heads and the government officials in the respective countries, including the US.

And the voices in my head are calling the voices in your head a pussies. How's that for hit and run you fucking tard.

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
If we have one, it will be the 5th in a row that took place on the watch of a Republican president.
As I recall, the worst since the Great Depression was the one brought on by Reaganomics in the early 80s. It featured your standard GOP record-sized deficits as well as unemployment in double-digits.



Numbers, please? And didn't the budgets get passed by a Democrat controlled Ways and Means committee? And isn't it true that the first balanced budget get passed by a Republican controlled Ways and Means committee?

And let's speak about earmarks, for a second. Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise the end of earmarks, yet her congress still continues to attach them willy-nilly to budgets?

Let's face it. The Republican Party has lost it's reputation of being fiscally responsible since President Bush lost his veto pen 7 years ago. But the Democrats never had the rep to begin with.


There has always been a lot of talk about balancing budgets and being fiscally responsible, but the first time we really saw action on this was the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act which took back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts for the rich and imposed a mild tax increase on the middle class.
At that time we were looking at record-sizeddeficits, unemployment over 7% and the economy in the doldrums.
The 1993 act passed without a single Republican voting for it and VP Gore had to break a tie in the Senate. From then on we saw almost no growth in discretionary spending for several years and by reducing the deficit, lending institutions had money to lend to business instead of the government and the greatest economic boom of all times took off.
Republican claims of disaster were proven false as unemployment went down and the economy picked up steam.

As for earmarks, I don't recall Pelosi promising to end them, but they did fulfill their promise to make authorship of them known.

You are correct that budgets come out of the Congress, but the Congress works alongside the executive and both present budgets in the bargaining process that takes place. In the budgets that led to the deficits listed below, administration proposals were withing a few percentage points of those proposed by Congress, and at least once, I believe 1983, Reagan proposed more spending than the Congress.
Not once have we seen a Republican or Democratic president veto one of the budgets listed below.
They were all passed with the signiture of endorsement by each president listed.

Here are the numbers I have for record-sized deficits* and see if you can notice a trend:

2004----- 412-------BUSH

2003-----378--------BUSH

2005-----319--------BUSH

1992-----318.9------BUSH

1991-----304.8------BUSH

1983-----309.4------REAGAN

1986------296.9-----REAGAN

1985------291.7-----REAGAN

1993-----272.9------CLINTON

1984-----263.4------REAGAN

1990------260.9-----BUSH

2005------251-------BUSH

1994-----212.8------CLINTON

1982-----199.6------REAGAN

1989-----186---------BUSH

1988------196.5-----REAGAN

1987------195.6-----REAGAN

1995------167.8-----CLINTON

2007-------163-------BUSH

2002-----137.8-------BUSH

1980-----135.9------CARTER

1981-----131.6------REAGAN

1996-----107.5------CLINTON

1979-----82.5-------CARTER


*I have seen some different numbers for some of the above deficits, but not significant differences that would rebut the point that when it comes to record-sized deficits, the Republicans own the category.
You see pretty much the same results when comparing deficits in terms of being percentage of the GDP.

[scottinnj]

Thank you High Fly. I always appreciate the response.
Again I say that this type of thing is a bipartisan problem. Sorry to drag you into a side argument with Spoon about Carter's energy problems.

Which is a perfect example.

While the problem being caused in the 70s wasn't Carter's fault, the solution of "turn down the thermostats" and put on a sweater wasn't a viable solution. While a lot of people liked Carter's efforts to go solar and such, the technology just wasn't there to make alternative energy something for the masses. He didn't try to expand convential power to increase supply to offset energy demands while the new cleaner and renewable energy sources were being explored.

[Jujubees2]

Thank you High Fly. I always appreciate the response.
Again I say that this type of thing is a bipartisan problem. Sorry to drag you into a side argument with Spoon about Carter's energy problems.

Which is a perfect example.

While the problem being caused in the 70s wasn't Carter's fault, the solution of "turn down the thermostats" and put on a sweater wasn't a viable solution. While a lot of people liked Carter's efforts to go solar and such, the technology just wasn't there to make alternative energy something for the masses. He didn't try to expand convential power to increase supply to offset energy demands while the new cleaner and renewable energy sources were being explored.

But if we had gone ahead with Carter's solar energy proposals, we just might have a viable solar energy solution today. Instead, we haven't moved much from our energy issues of the 70s and we're still talking about finding alternatives. At least he had the balls to attempt to do something for the future as opposed to the Bush energy policy (which we really don't know what it is since Chaney won't release the notes of the meetings with the oil company executives).

[TeeBone]

If we have one, it will be the 5th in a row that took place on the watch of a Republican president.
As I recall, the worst since the Great Depression was the one brought on by Reaganomics in the early 80s. It featured your standard GOP record-sized deficits as well as unemployment in double-digits.

Not entirely true with respect to blaming Reaganomics, but nice try with our revisionist history.

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
If we have one, it will be the 5th in a row that took place on the watch of a Republican president.
As I recall, the worst since the Great Depression was the one brought on by Reaganomics in the early 80s. It featured your standard GOP record-sized deficits as well as unemployment in double-digits.


Not entirely true with respect to blaming Reaganomics, but nice try with our revisionist history.


It IS true of Reaganomics.
In '81 Ronald "Dutch" Reagan got the bulk of his program passed and in 1983, instead of having the balanced budget "Dutch" Reagan had promised that his program would deliver, unemployment was up a full 2 points and he doubled the deficit Reaganomics was going to eliminate, setting a new record that took years of hard work by Republicans to top.

Instead of the boom "Dutch" Reagan predicted, we went into the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

The whole charade was exposed by Reagan budget director David Stockman in testimony to Congress.
Tax cuts for the rich do not pay for themselves, but rather, cost the government more in reduced income than the limited amount of productivity they generate.
Not only that, but they increase deficits whose interest increases faster than the economy.

Go ahead, show us where we have ever borrowed our way to prosperity.



“I’ve asked several times what the difference is between borrowing or taxing. We’re still taking the money from the people either way.”
- - - President Ronald Reagan, letter to Victor H. “Brute” Krulak, June 14, 1984






Check these stats out:

Tracking the average jobless rate, by president The rate they inherited is placed in brackets –[ ]:

Jimmy Carter 6.5% [ 7.5 ] Ronald Reagan 7.5% [ 7.5 ] George H.W. Bush 6.3% [ 5.4 ] Bill Clinton 5.2% [ 7.4 ] George W. Bush 5.4% * [4.1]

NOTE: G.W. Bush's stats are given in January 2006 and his overall average will be lower, but he has never gotten unemployment to the level he inherited


[ See: “Economy Gained Muscle Last Year, Expanding Jobs In Chicago, Bush Rejoices and Says Policies Are Working,”
by Jim VandeHei and Nell Henderson, Washington Post, Sat. Jan. 7, 2006; stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a graph]
Rate each had to start with --- Carter - 7.5%; Reagan – (about) 7.5%; Bush41 – (about) 5.4%; Clinton – 7.4%; Bush43 – 4.1%

[high fly]

Not once have we seen a Republican or Democratic president veto one of the budgets listed below.
They were all passed with the signiture of endorsement by each president listed.

Here are the numbers I have for record-sized deficits* and see if you can notice a trend:

2004----- 412-------BUSH

2003-----378--------BUSH

2005-----319--------BUSH

1992-----318.9------BUSH

1991-----304.8------BUSH

1983-----309.4------REAGAN

1986------296.9-----REAGAN

1985------291.7-----REAGAN

1993-----272.9------CLINTON

1984-----263.4------REAGAN

1990------260.9-----BUSH

2005------251-------BUSH

1994-----212.8------CLINTON

1982-----199.6------REAGAN

1989-----186---------BUSH

1988------196.5-----REAGAN

1987------195.6-----REAGAN

1995------167.8-----CLINTON

2007-------163-------BUSH

2002-----137.8-------BUSH

1980-----135.9------CARTER

1981-----131.6------REAGAN

1996-----107.5------CLINTON

1979-----82.5-------CARTER


*I have seen some different numbers for some of the above deficits, but not significant differences that would rebut the point that when it comes to record-sized deficits, the Republicans own the category.
You see pretty much the same results when comparing deficits in terms of being percentage of the GDP.


I believe I made a mistake, above.
The 1993 budget was not signed by Clinton because it was passed before he was president.



“There’s a new sheriff in town and he’s dedicated to fiscal discipline.”
----- Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer, Oct. 18, 2002

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Looks like they paid a shit load of taxes


http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks

[underdog]

Looks like they paid a shit load of taxes


http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks

The tax rate in this country is really fucking insane sometimes, but they made their record profit after they paid $30 billion in taxes. That's just fucking crazy.

[epo]

The tax rate in this country is really fucking insane sometimes, but they made their record profit after they paid $30 billion in taxes. That's just fucking crazy.

A corporation that paid a 41% tax rate is a very, very profitable corporation. They have received a great return on their tax dollar investment.

[scottinnj]

When you are talking money, after a billion it's all make believe.

Did you see the President's proposed budget? 3.2 TRILLION dollars. He's in fucking fantasy land. We defeated the Soviet Union on a 900 billion dollar budget. Still lunacy, but now we are seeing deficit spending numbers equal to the budgets of NATO countries.

[Bulldogcakes]

2004----- 412-------BUSH

2003-----378--------BUSH

2005-----319--------BUSH

1992-----318.9------BUSH (1)

1991-----304.8------BUSH (1)

1983-----309.4------REAGAN

1986------296.9-----REAGAN

1985------291.7-----REAGAN

1993-----272.9------CLINTON

1984-----263.4------REAGAN

1990------260.9-----BUSH

2005------251-------BUSH

1994-----212.8------CLINTON

1982-----199.6------REAGAN

1989-----186---------BUSH

1988------196.5-----REAGAN

1987------195.6-----REAGAN

1995------167.8-----CLINTON

2007-------163-------BUSH

2002-----137.8-------BUSH

1980-----135.9------CARTER

1981-----131.6------REAGAN

1996-----107.5------CLINTON

1979-----82.5-------CARTER


*I have seen some different numbers for some of the above deficits, but not significant differences that would rebut the point that when it comes to record-sized deficits, the Republicans own the category.
You see pretty much the same results when comparing deficits in terms of being percentage of the GDP.


If you want to make the case that the Bush's don't give a rats ass about deficits, then I agree 100%. I would even go further to say that they ENDORSE deficits because its adds a few points of GDP onto economic growth and then they can claim the economy is good. Bad for the country, good for their own political careers.

Reagan gets a pass since he had a Democrat Congress which appropriated every dime that was spent. They simply added his military spending on top of everything else they wanted. He won the Cold War, so the money was well spent.

Clinton gets a pass for 1993, it was his first year in office. His tax increase shaved the first 60 bill off the deficit, but after that he has to share the credit with the 1994 Republican Congress, who again, appropriated every dime. The tax increase alone didn't bring about the balanced budgets, the spending restraint and the Dotcom boom did.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Alot of people might have investments in Exxon/Mobil and not even know it. Pension Plans, Mutual Funds , 401k's have funds that can be vested in Exxon Mobil. Check the prospectus

[TeeBone]

This might be the funniest thread on .net
WOW!!!