Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3423 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
I would imagine the 60 billion part is their market cap.

They only profited about 300 million Canadian in the last quarter. Which translates to about 1.2 billion in profit per year.

You're only looking at one side of the ledger Ellis. The company has other expenses. Revenue doesn't mean profit. Revenue will have to pay overhead and maintenance.

Cost of production are only put onto the consumer if the consumer chooses to purchase the product.

My dismissal that fifty billion dollar clean up effort is spot on. It would bankrupt TransCanada.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
LittleWing wrote:
I would imagine the 60 billion part is their market cap.

They only profited about 300 million Canadian in the last quarter. Which translates to about 1.2 billion in profit per year.

You're only looking at one side of the ledger Ellis. The company has other expenses. Revenue doesn't mean profit. Revenue will have to pay overhead and maintenance.

Cost of production are only put onto the consumer if the consumer chooses to purchase the product.

My dismissal that fifty billion dollar clean up effort is spot on. It would bankrupt TransCanada.
whether or not "consumers choose to purchase the product" is strawman-ish, don't you think? e'rybody needz da oil, yah?

but i think we can cap this conversation, as the quote i posted near the bottom of the last page demonstrates, the process has done its job, the pipeline will be re-routed to avoid the most environmentally sensitive region. in other words, despite all the technology and advances that you're purporting will protect us from a disastrous spill, an even better preventative measure is to avoid the region as much as possible.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Better how? Better for environmental concerns? Maybe. Better for economics? Probly not.

I don't think mentioning the consumer is a strawman argument at all. Without the consumer there's what exactly? The purpose of cap and trade is to push the consumption of fossil fuels down, is it not? So why does the consumer become a strawman?

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
LittleWing wrote:
Better how? Better for environmental concerns? Maybe. Better for economics? Probly not.
i'd say it's way too premature to know the economic impact of pushing approval of this proposal back a little longer (afterall, the "deadline" was just a congressional creation), however, we can most certainly say that it'll be a safer endeavor based on the fact that oil will not potentially end up in an important region (i.e. no matter how small you could have made the risk before, it's now zero for Nebraska).


LittleWing wrote:
I don't think mentioning the consumer is a strawman argument at all. Without the consumer there's what exactly? The purpose of cap and trade is to push the consumption of fossil fuels down, is it not? So why does the consumer become a strawman?
you're confusing the points, which could be my fault, i'm obviously not above being wrong and being called out for it, but i mentioned "bad cap & trade" as an example of non-sense that was similar to aliveguy's nonsensical "bad oil" line which had nothing to do w/ anything i've posted about for the last two pages.

yes, cap and trade raises prices, but i don't see that as a deal breaker since we all need to be more energy/pollution efficient.
therefore, if in producing this tar sands crude into useful oil costs more (which is why my "rudimentary math" was suppose to low ball their potential profits) it will still ultimately be worth it since it is a much needed resource.

in both cases, the consumer is SOL, as the supply (be it vague "products from polluters" or specific "oil") is very much in demand. either way, efficiency is a powerful outcome and alternative for consumers, but it won't make either business less lucrative.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 am
Posts: 14671
Location: Baton Rouge
Gender: Male
Quote:
EllisEamos


Well stated points, sir.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Mitchell wrote:
Quote:
EllisEamos


Well stated points, sir.
i know when i'm being mocked, mitchell.
but i also deserve it most of the time.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 am
Posts: 14671
Location: Baton Rouge
Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
Mitchell wrote:
Quote:
EllisEamos


Well stated points, sir.
i know when i'm being mocked, mitchell.
but i also deserve it most of the time.


Actually not mocking you. I enjoyed reading your arguments.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Mitchell wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
Mitchell wrote:
Quote:
EllisEamos


Well stated points, sir.
i know when i'm being mocked, mitchell.
but i also deserve it most of the time.


Actually not mocking you. I enjoyed reading your arguments.

you're clearly an idiot.
like me.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Old news, but...

http://news.investors.com/Article/591960/201111161727/Billionaire-Buffetts-Bakken-Boom.htm

Billionaire Buffett's Bakken Boom
Posted 11/16/2011 05:27 PM ET

Energy Policy: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world's richest men get richer. North Dakota's booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president's economic guru just bought.

Stop us if you see a pattern here. About the time George Soros — Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party — invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

As he was imposing curbs and moratoria on U.S. offshore drillers, President Obama wished the Brazilians well in the hope we would someday be Brazil's best oil customer.

Apparently, oil tankers coming from Brazil are better and safer than a pipeline from Canada, whose best customer we will not be if they ship their tar sands oil to China instead.

Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay.

As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.

As a result, North Dakota's booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company.

North Dakota vaulted past Oklahoma and Louisiana in 2009 to be the nation's fourth-largest oil producer after Texas, Alaska and California.

Rail shipments accounted for up to 65,000 of the nearly 343,000 barrels of oil produced daily in North Dakota in December. That percentage is likely to increase.

Many of the rail shipments from the Bakken fields are being handled by BNSF Railway Co., which has more than 1,000 miles of tracks in the region.

Michael Bruce, the railroad's business development director, said BNSF could ship up 730,000 barrels of crude daily out of North Dakota "contingent on facilities being built."

North Dakota pumped a record 113 million barrels of oil in 2010. State officials estimate the state will produce 700,000 barrels daily in four to seven years.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
#44's state of the union wrote:
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.
fuckin' stoner...

Image

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
EllisEamos wrote:
#44's state of the union wrote:
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.


Err.... they do pay at least as much. People who live on capital gains just pay lower rates.

EllisEamos wrote:
#44's state of the union wrote:
When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.



Or, you know, just maybe, we could cut spending to make up for the reduction in revenue.


EllisEamos wrote:
fuckin' stoner...
Image


More like:

Image

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:26 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
People playing on Romney's low personal tax rate are a joke. They do realize that corporate tax has been paid and that the lower rate he pays is not to penalize you for owning shares versus a private company.

Private Co. Shares
Company Income $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Corporate Tax 0 250,000
To Owners $1,000,000 $750,000
Personal Tax 400,000 150,000
Net Tax to Gov't $400,000 $400,000
Personal Tax Rate 40% 20%

If the net to the government is the same, why do people harp on the personal tax rate. In both cases $1,000,000 income generated $400,000 tax revenue.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
fuckin' stoner...
Image


More like:
blah blah
i was talking about me, as that album was the first thing i thought of when i saw the quote.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:22 am
Posts: 1603
Location: Buffalo
I wonder how many books Jan Brewer will sell after sticking her finger in Obama's face. Pretty blatant stunt.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 2573
Location: CT
I'd love for Warren Buffett to explain how his secretary who makes $60,000 could possibly pay a tax rate of 35.8%, when the top tax rate is 35% and you have to make almost $400,000 to hit that rate.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 17563
shinkdew wrote:
I'd love for Warren Buffett to explain how his secretary who makes $60,000 could possibly pay a tax rate of 35.8%, when the top tax rate is 35% and you have to make almost $400,000 to hit that rate.

Accounting for what she pays in sales tax or other things besides income taxes?

_________________
Quote:
The content of the video in this situation is irrelevant to the issue.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
shinkdew wrote:
I'd love for Warren Buffett to explain how his secretary who makes $60,000 could possibly pay a tax rate of 35.8%, when the top tax rate is 35% and you have to make almost $400,000 to hit that rate.



Because we have a fucked up way of paying tax in this country that is convoluted and difficult to understand on purpose. The health care system works the same way.

It's never going to get any better.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 2573
Location: CT
bart d. wrote:
shinkdew wrote:
I'd love for Warren Buffett to explain how his secretary who makes $60,000 could possibly pay a tax rate of 35.8%, when the top tax rate is 35% and you have to make almost $400,000 to hit that rate.

Accounting for what she pays in sales tax or other things besides income taxes?


If that's true, why does he compare his effective tax rate to her total tax? I have a good idea why, but he should be comparing apples to apples.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
shinkdew wrote:
I'd love for Warren Buffett to explain how his secretary who makes $60,000 could possibly pay a tax rate of 35.8%, when the top tax rate is 35% and you have to make almost $400,000 to hit that rate.



forbes.com wrote:
Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.[for what Obama said to be true]

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: 44th President Barack Obama.
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
We might as well spell it out. Politicians are disingenuous. People who speak for politicians are disingenous.

The capital gains rate is 15% if you make all of your income from investments, you pay capital gains (in addition to a variety of other state, federal and local, perhaps even corporate taxes) but generally this fact is left out when people bring up capital gains.

Buffett mentioned his secretary because the income tax rate is higher than the capital gains rate. There are a variety of reasons for this, most of it having to do with the fact that it benefits the economy to encourage investment and there are only a very small number of people who make thier income exclusively on investments but generally all of us invest. If you make the tax rate on investments similar to what it is on income many of us would have a lot less money to invest and the economy would suffer.

Buffett was being disingenuous by making it seem as if his secretary paid more in taxes because he included all of her tax burden and only his capital gains rate. He knows damned well why the capital gains rate is less than the income tax rate.

What we could do is change the tax system so that it was easy to know how much tax one would pay all the time and make it obvious how much one owed or paid, but that would take the control over the code away from our politicians and of course, no matter who is in charge that would just be distasteful.


If Buffett wants to pay more in taxes, all he's got to do is include more as a gift on his return, and he knows that too.

Just another product of political silly season in an election year.

I'm pretty much decided on not voting, no one in this election deserves a vote.


The richest people and the poorest people both benifit most from Government, this won't change. The people in the middle will always be burdened disproportionately to their income. That's just life. NO one gives two shits about the middle unless it's an election year.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3423 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:37 pm