O/T What are the real truths? What is happening right under our nose?

evodawg wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Somebody wrote:
>>
>>> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>> 10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
>> "Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
>> lifetime".
>>
>> This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
>> patch".
>>
>> I agreed.
>>
>> Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
>> will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
>> environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.
>>
>> The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
>> about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
>> it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
>> refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
>> refinery.
>>
>> As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.
>>
>> Lew
> Damn 1 good lawyer in 10,000 now that's not likely to happen again.
Yuppers. It's the 97% that give the other 3% a bad name...

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:c0dca470-8712-456e-8c35-
[email protected]:

> On Apr 28, 12:08 am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
>> project that changed their mind, over a vacant field.      
>
> Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
> mower to cut it.
>

Yeah, and that lawn mower uses more gas than the Prius!

Puckdropper
--
You can only do so much with caulk, cardboard, and duct tape.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Apr 26, 1:22=A0am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Renata <[email protected]> wrote innews:2gf31490ija8kvs2qk6qb82hp5gdkkb=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Renata wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected].
> >>>>> com...
>
> >>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 selling us
> >>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
> >>>>> are selling us theirs?
> >>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
> >>>>> of their $49 billion profit?
> >>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
> >>>> on the dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>
> >>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> >>> Renata
>
> >>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Their
> >>net income was $40 billion.
>
> > But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
> > paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gross
> > is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days. =
=A0
>
> > Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to know
> > the "rest of the story".
>
> > Renata
>
> You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% =A0(OK 3/4) of $7=
2
> billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is=

> what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we shoul=
d
> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit ove=
r
> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
> the year (past years). =A0 =A0- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The effective income tax rate is tax expense divided by income before
taxes.

Dave - Parkville

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Renata wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Renata wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>>>> us theirs?
>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>
>>>> Renata
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>>> income was $40 billion.
>>
>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>>
>> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>> the "rest of the story".
>
>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint.

R

Leon wrote:

>
> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
> I think we should
>> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
>> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
>> over
>> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
>> the year (past years).
>
>
> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience some
caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of several
million), or we might endanger some previously unknown "endangered" microbe
or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year. Only when people get angry enough
at the shenanigans going on to thwart production and distribution is this
problem going to get solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous
earth-worshipping luddites preventing progress and trying to force people
to buy indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the problem. It
will, however have the effect of providing lots of money and power to the
people espousing these policies (who, will of course not alter their
lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and lower the quality of life
and remove freedoms from the rest of us. Until and unless people wake up
to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more of the same.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:34 -0500, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:

>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Renata wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected].
>>>>>> com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
>>>>>> selling us
>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
>>>>>> are selling us theirs?
>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
>>>>>> of their $49 billion profit?
>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
>>>>> on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>
>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>
>>>> Renata
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
>>>net income was $40 billion.
>>
>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>>
>> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>> the "rest of the story".
>>
>> Renata
>
>You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
>billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
>what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we should
>stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
>refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit over
>5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
>the year (past years).

" I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net."

30/40 = 75%

But, what I didn't take into account until I saw some financial tables
spelling this stuff out was that their profit was 72B - minus 30B
taxes. The tax rate is on the 72B, not the 40B remaining after taxes.
THAT was my error.

Renata

On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> >> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
> >> paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>
> > In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54 if I
> > worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much different from
> > the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than today :-).
>
> You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a minimum
> of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was only available
> in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
Amoco's primary selling point.

My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave in Houston wrote:
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>
>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>> us theirs?
>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>> $49 billion profit?
>
>Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>

I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata



>> Whoever said there is no honor among thieves was right.
>
>Check out MicroSoft. $51 billion total revenue with $14 billion profit
>- or 27 cents on the dollar! They did pay $6 billion in income tax.
>With that big of margin, I wonder why they charge so much since they
>have over 90% of their market? Oh, that's right, they're in business to
>make money for their investors, which includes my IRA funds.
>
>I'm happy I invested in Exxon-Mobil - took the sting out of the current
>market downturn.
>
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>>
>>

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:01:58 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snipped>
>
>Besides, who gives a rat's ass as long as you can watch American Idol, right
>after the network evening news.


News? I don't think I've seen actual news on television since the
dawn of CNN.

I closed a plant in a small town, which is unfortunately bound to be
"news". One of the most shocking things about this was observing the"
news" articles that were written or broadcast about that event. Other
than a couple of prepared press releases, I offered no interviews or
additional information. Unbelievable what was "made up" to fit the
agenda targeted opinion that was published or reported as "news".

You sir, are not smart enough to be given the facts and formulate your
own opinion regarding same. But not to worry, someone will do it for
you.

Frank

On Apr 23, 11:25 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>... Then take into consideration that the oil
> companies don't participate in price fixing. HA! For price fixing they
> would all have to get together to agree on a price. That would be illegal.
> Let the ignorant media do that dirty work for us. One of the oil companies
> will indicate to a reporter that oil prices have gone up and gasoline prices
> are going to go up in a few weeks. The reporter on national TV reports this
> information for all to see including all the other oil companies. The news
> report is the trigger for all the other oil companies to raise their prices
> and oddly all on the same day.
> ...

The price fixing is on the other end of the pipeline,
and competitive pricing is further squelched by the
throttling effect of limited refinery capacity. Excess
capacity is excess overhead.

Suppose when the price of petroleum goes up one company
decides to hold the line at it's stations and take the reduced
margin. In a free market, consumers would be attracted by
the lower prices and the company that held the line would
increase its market share thus raising its net profit, albeit
on a lower margin.

Problem is, that company cannot increase its supply to
keep up with that increased demand. First of all, most
companies are already operating their refineries at
peak capacity. Also petroleum, like wood, is a natural
product with considerable variation in its properties
dependent on the source. If a refinery begins receiving
feed from a different oil field it will have to retool to
handle those differences.

Aside from those problems, petroleum is delivered on long-term
contracts. Their suppliers, like everyone else's, are already
pumping their quota and are not allowed to pump more.
Other suppliers are already pumping their quota and under
contract to deliver to other companies and so cannot (or
will not) sell to the company with the lower prices.

So instead of capturing a larger market share, a company
that undercuts it's competition would run short on product,
soon losing at least as much market share as they initially
gained.

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.

--

FF

On May 2, 10:03=A0am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave - Parkville, MD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Renata wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Renata wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Renata wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]=
s.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies ar=
e selling us
> >>>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis =
are selling
> >>>>>>>>> us theirs?
> >>>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chun=
k of their
> >>>>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
> >>>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents=
on the
> >>>>>>>> dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
> >>>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
> >>>>>>> Renata
> >>>>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Th=
eir net
> >>>>>> income was $40 billion.
> >>>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that th=
ey
> >>>>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gr=
oss
> >>>>> is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these day=
s. =A0
> >>>>> Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to kn=
ow
> >>>>> the "rest of the story".
> >>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=3DXOM&annual
> >>> Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. =A0Can't imagine that, if this is
> >>> the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
> >>> their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
> >>> guvmint. =A0
> >> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody=

> >> is going to the slammer. =A0I also don't know why they would cry public=
ly
> >> as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
> >> corporations. =A0By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxe=
s
> >> (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
> >> making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvm=
int?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The taxes you see on the income tax line of the income statement are
> > ONLY taxes based on income, not fuel taxes or payroll taxes.
>
> > Dave - Parkville
>
> If you re-read my post, I think you'll find that's the essence of what I
> said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed. Skipped over too many.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Renata wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>> us theirs?
>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>
>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>income was $40 billion.

But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".

Renata

On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
> > "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > I think we should
> >> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
> >> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
> >> over
> >> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
> >> the year (past years).
>
> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to let
> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand.

OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
world supply...

--

FF

On Apr 23, 6:30=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:

> It would be my assessment that the 8% you quoted to 10 or even 15% is
> actually closer to the historical record. I can't imagine it was ever
> "commonly 50% more expensive." That doesn't jibe with my memory.

Never happened. 5-10% max.
>
> Of course even when Sunoco had pumps with about six or more selections
> of grade (remember 260?) I'll bet there wasn't as much as a 50%
> premium from lowest to highest grade.
>

I remember Sunoco 280. It was about 20% higher than 'regular leaded.'
I live in a Sunoco town. We have a refinery right here.
It might be purely a 'mind' thing, but I feel like there's always a
little more power after I get Sun Oil gasoline.
Sunoco treats their employees a little better than the others.

r

On May 2, 1:24 am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote innews:1ff807d5-6207-4908-9287-8195c4040d5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> >> >> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
> >> >> I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>
> >> > In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
> >> > if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
> >> > different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
> >> > today :-).
>
> >> You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
> >> minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
> >> only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.
>
> > In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
> > Amoco's primary selling point.
>
> > My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
> > even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
> > Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
> > Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.
>
> I could take most '57s. Couldn't take vettes that had a driver. A good '57
> power pack with a driver could take me at least half the time (if not
> more). I was running a '41 ford coupe, '48 59AB block Merc bored and
> stroked. Had Edelbrock 10:1 heads, Fenton triple manifold, running
> Strombergs. Had an Edelbrock 3/4 cam that I screwed around with. Polished
> valves, and light springs. Was running a Linc Zepher trans with a 4:11
> rear. Pissed me off when stuff out of the showroom was beating me. I guess
> I ushered out the 'Flathead era'. Left me no choice, but to join the
> crotch.

I've had my flatheads--most recently (about 40 years ago), a '51 Ford
business coupe I'd love to get back.

Showroom stock super cars really began in '56, I think, with the Chev
power pack 265. The next year, the power pack 283 was a pisser, and my
'57 was the Urine 8 of them all, at least around where I lived (dear
old Westchester County, NY, a place I joined the crotch to leave). I
was paying $78.37 a month on that '57 when I went to Parris Island at
a munificent $78 a month (no uniform allowance that first 14 weeks).
Mom sold it. It was probably just as well. 1957 was the first year of
mandatory auto insurance in NY, with about a 65 buck premium. I think
within five years that had hit $200.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Hair is about the only thing I have left. It costs about 12 bucks
> here, with tip. Wotinell happened to the 75 cent haircut? My biggest
> expense in the crotch. "Self, get yer hair cut!" Self, getcha
> goddamned hair cut!" About once a week.

Several years ago, I got tired of being charged $20 to cut my mostly bald
head at barbershops. They'd zip along with an electric shave set on #3 level
to get the few hairs I had left that would still grow. Went out and bought
myself a hair trimmer for $25 and haven't paid a cent since. One of the very
few benefits of being bald, or mostly so.

On Apr 29, 1:33 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave in Houston wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
> > policy
> > meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
> > has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
> > profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
> > Who knew?
>
>...
>
> and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company declare
> we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build more
> refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?

Probably right before the part about how we
were going to invade Iraq.

Of course since those meetings were secret,
and no one in the Justice Department has had
the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
Congress about attending them, we may never
know.

--

FF

On May 2, 1:34 am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote innews:6b64323e-237c-4797-96d1-9d2f327ba083@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Leon wrote:
>
> >> > "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > I think we should
> >> >> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
> >> >> build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper.
> >> >> Any profit over
> >> >> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
> >> >> income for the year (past years).
>
> >> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> >> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil
> >> to let
> >> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience
> >> some caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of
> >> several million), or we might endanger some previously unknown
> >> "endangered" microbe or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices
> >> going up now because of the required cafe blends for each specific
> >> city that requires refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
> >> Only when people get angry enough at the shenanigans going on to
> >> thwart production and distribution is this problem going to get
> >> solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous earth-worshipping
> >> luddites preventing progress and trying to force people to buy
> >> indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
> >> which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the
> >> problem. It will, however have the effect of providing lots of money
> >> and power to the people espousing these policies (who, will of course
> >> not alter their lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and
> >> lower the quality of life and remove freedoms from the rest of us.
> >> Until and unless people wake up to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for
> >> a lot more of the same.
>
> >> --
>
> > Aw, c'mon, Mark. Didn't you hear that Gore put in solar panels on his
> > mansion? Dunno if he did the same on his jet, but...it always strikes
> > me as wonderful how much money these guys make out of telling the rest
> > of us to live frugally, green, and wipe our butts an extra stroke in
> > the process, without wasting paper.
>
> > There's a big "Save The Trees" movement against printed junk mail,
> > these days. I don't like junk mail, but I do realize that 90+% of the
> > paper that goes into it, and most other printed material, is
> > specifically planted and nurtured for just that purpose, to make
> > paper. We're not dealing with virgin forests, but, essentially, with
> > cropland.
>
> > But, hey, we don't want the natives getting restless. That would be
> > like wondering how Jesse Jackson, a preacher without any church,
> > always manages to make over a quarter million a year.
>
> > Many liberal policies make sense, but not even close to all.
>
> Charlie, check Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharepton again. A quarter of a
> million to them is chump change. The Reverend Sharpton pays more for his
> hairdo (whoops), I mean haircut, than President Clinton, Senator Kerry
> and Senator Edwards combined. Up here in Windham, NY, I pay (still have a
> pretty good head of hair) $12 and that includes a 20% tip.

Hair is about the only thing I have left. It costs about 12 bucks
here, with tip. Wotinell happened to the 75 cent haircut? My biggest
expense in the crotch. "Self, get yer hair cut!" Self, getcha
goddamned hair cut!" About once a week.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:01:58 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> >
> >Besides, who gives a rat's ass as long as you can watch American Idol,
right
> >after the network evening news.
>
>
> News? I don't think I've seen actual news on television since the
> dawn of CNN.

Can you spell "facetious"? <g>


(I know you can, but I'm not so sure about _many_ others)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Apr 26, 8:30 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:3162b6af-b7b6-43c7-9b08-1e6de3d09dcf@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Leon wrote:
>
...
>
> >> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> >> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
> >> let
> >> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand.
>
> > OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
> > world supply...
>
> Considering that Exxon estimates that we have only used 1/3 of the world
> reserves I don't think I am going to be around to see us be in control.
> We'll only be around to see us go broke.

What matters is not how much we've used, it's how fast we are using it
up.

Last I heard, the Canada tar sands alone were enough to keep the US
supplied at the present rate for 'a long time' (e.g. I don't remember
the
number, but it was like 50 years or more).

The OPEC quotas are based, at least in part, on each member nation's
remaining reserves, which encourages each to exaggerate those
estimates.

I wonder if there is any similar advantage for Exxon?

--

FF

On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
> > "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > I think we should
> >> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
> >> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
> >> over
> >> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
> >> the year (past years).
>
> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to let
> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience some
> caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of several
> million), or we might endanger some previously unknown "endangered" microbe
> or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices going up now because of
> the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
> shutdown and reconfiguration every year. Only when people get angry enough
> at the shenanigans going on to thwart production and distribution is this
> problem going to get solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous
> earth-worshipping luddites preventing progress and trying to force people
> to buy indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
> which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the problem. It
> will, however have the effect of providing lots of money and power to the
> people espousing these policies (who, will of course not alter their
> lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and lower the quality of life
> and remove freedoms from the rest of us. Until and unless people wake up
> to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more of the same.
>
> --

Aw, c'mon, Mark. Didn't you hear that Gore put in solar panels on his
mansion? Dunno if he did the same on his jet, but...it always strikes
me as wonderful how much money these guys make out of telling the rest
of us to live frugally, green, and wipe our butts an extra stroke in
the process, without wasting paper.

There's a big "Save The Trees" movement against printed junk mail,
these days. I don't like junk mail, but I do realize that 90+% of the
paper that goes into it, and most other printed material, is
specifically planted and nurtured for just that purpose, to make
paper. We're not dealing with virgin forests, but, essentially, with
cropland.

But, hey, we don't want the natives getting restless. That would be
like wondering how Jesse Jackson, a preacher without any church,
always manages to make over a quarter million a year.

Many liberal policies make sense, but not even close to all.

On May 2, 12:04 am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote innews:55a67a8e-8e91-41e8-8afd-593ce64c240e@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 1:33 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dave in Houston wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door
> >> > energy policy
> >> > meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
> >> > regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
> >> > 4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
> >> > (not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?
>
> >>...
>
> >> and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company
> >> declare
> >> we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build
> >> more refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?
>
> > Probably right before the part about how we
> > were going to invade Iraq.
>
> > Of course since those meetings were secret,
> > and no one in the Justice Department has had
> > the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
> > Congress about attending them, we may never
> > know.
>...

>
> Actully President Bush and his cabinet were quite open with their
> intentions. ...

That is a very interesting statement considering that
Cheney successful quashed the Congressional effort
to obtain minutes of those meetings by citing executive
privilege. Which later made it all the more precious
when he later advanced the novel claim that the Vice
President was NOT part of the administration.

So please do tell us what transpired when Cheney met
with those Enron Executives six months or so before
Enron collapsed.

--

FF

On Apr 23, 7:43 pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
> > does that they control the price on the world market.
>
> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
> us theirs?
> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
> $49 billion profit?
>
> Whoever said there is no honor among thieves was right.
>
> Dave in Houston

On Apr 25, 9:00=A0am, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:29:07 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Renata wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> >>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are se=
lling us
> >>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are =
selling
> >>>>> us theirs?
> >>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of=
their
> >>>>> $49 billion profit?
> >>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on =
the
> >>>> dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>
> >>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> >>> Renata
>
> >>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Their n=
et
> >>income was $40 billion.
>
> >But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
> >paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gross
> >is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days. =
=A0
>
> >Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to know
> >the "rest of the story".
>
> >Renata
>
> Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,
> 2000
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Taxable income over =A0 =A0 Not over =A0 =A0 =A0Tax rate
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 $ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0$ =A0 =A050,000 =A0=
=A0 =A0 =A015%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A050,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 75,000 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A025%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A075,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0100,000 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A034%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 100,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0335,000 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A039%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 335,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10,000,000 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A034%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010,000,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 15,000,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A035%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,000,000 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 18,333,333 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A038%
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A018,333,333 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 .......... =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A035%
>
> Plus applicable state, plus any capital gains which are not favored on
> the corporate level.

You would want to get over 336,000, eh?

On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:25:39 -0500, "Leon"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Many years ago premium was commonly 50% more expensive
> >than regular. Today it is about 8% more expensive.
>
> I don't know what "many years ago" is to you, but it takes me back to
> my yout of the '50s, when regular was commonly 22=A2 a gallon or
> thereabouts. We were never premium users, so I can't say with
> certainty that it wasn't 11=A2 higher but I'd be very surprised if it
> was. When I was doing my commuting during the '60s regular was still
> relatively low, ranging from 28=A2 to 34=A2, but I am fairly certain
> premium (or any gas) was not over 40=A2 then.
>
> I remember well the gas lines of the '70s and when the price started
> creeping toward $1, but premium was never $1.50 until much later. Even
> closer to now as we've gone past $1.50, $2.00, $2.50, and $3.00 I
> don't ever remember seeing premium at half again as much.
>
> It would be my assessment that the 8% you quoted to 10 or even 15% is
> actually closer to the historical record. I can't imagine it was ever
> "commonly 50% more expensive." That doesn't jibe with my memory.
>
> Of course even when Sunoco had pumps with about six or more selections
> of grade (remember 260?) I'll bet there wasn't as much as a 50%
> premium from lowest to highest grade.
>

Oh, my. In '54, '55, I worked in a service station/garage. We were in
Westchester County, NY, a high end place if one every existed, so we
got 28.9 cents per gallon for regular, 32.9 for extra (Esso), and,
when Esso Golden Extra (AKA avgas) came out, it was 38.9. The only
people buying the Golden were Mercedes drivers and guys like me
running stock U.S. iron with 10.5-1 compression ratios. Oddly enough,
last year, after a lapse of 38 years, the guy whose father I worked
for (Gene and I went to HS together until he bailed out to become a
machinist and motorcycle racer) got in touch, and we got together.
He's out in Santa Barbara now, another high end joint, but he's not
any different (grayer and a few pounds heavier) than he was at 15,
when we got locked up in Briarcliff Manor.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:08:32 -0600, "asmurff"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Around that time I was driving a 1965 GTO would only run on Sunco 260 at .31
>or it would ping and knock something terrible now it is more than ten times
>that amount for the 85 octane crap they allow to be sold in New Mexico.
>First worked in an Exxon station Regular was .27 with Green Stamps and often
>glasses of other crazy stuff thrown in.

Howdy,

Factoring in inflation, the current price is roughly the
same...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Hank wrote:

> "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
>>> cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of
>>> this country.
>>
>> WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
>> policy
>> meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
>> regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
>> 4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
>> (not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>>

Ummm, have you checked Exxon's latest quarterly profit? [hint: it wasn't
up] From Forbe's.com: "The latest results fell short of the record $11.7
billion in earnings Exxon Mobil reported in the fourth quarter of 2007."
Earnings for the first quarter were $10.9 billion.

>>
>>
>
> Oviously not you. $.79 a gallon, 1979?, Must have been Cheney. It's really
> sad that we pay less than half per gallon than most of the world (although
> recently I think we are paying more than half). I don't think Hallburton
> is into oil. They may transport it though.
>
> Hank
>
> Lets kill the rich, then we can work for the poor.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:59ee54b9-b7ac-46e7-9bec-d5173fc58881@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> Hair is about the only thing I have left. It costs about 12 bucks
> here, with tip. Wotinell happened to the 75 cent haircut?
That would be the "regular boys" haircut like those my dad would force
me to get.
Flatops for summer were a a buck-fifty plus mandatory Butch Wax. That
would've been the late 50s.

Dave in Houston

Renata wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:34 -0500, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Renata wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected].
>>>>>>> com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
>>>>>>> selling us
>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
>>>>>>> are selling us theirs?
>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
>>>>>>> of their $49 billion profit?
>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
>>>>>> on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>>
>>>>> Renata
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
>>>>net income was $40 billion.
>>>
>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>>> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>>>
>>> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>>> the "rest of the story".
>>>
>>> Renata
>>
>>You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
>>billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
>>what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we
>>should stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
>>build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any
>>profit over 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
>>income for the year (past years).
>
> " I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net."
>
> 30/40 = 75%
>
> But, what I didn't take into account until I saw some financial tables
> spelling this stuff out was that their profit was 72B - minus 30B
> taxes. The tax rate is on the 72B, not the 40B remaining after taxes.
> THAT was my error.
>
> Renata

You do understand the difference between net and gross, right?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Dave in Houston wrote:

>
> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
>> cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
>> country.
>
> WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
> policy
> meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
> has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
> profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
> Who knew?
>
> Dave in Houston

and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company declare
we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build more
refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?

Don't blame this @#$% on Cheney or the oil companies, they aren't the ones
screaming bloody murder when some arctic caribou gets inconvenienced by
having to walk around an oil derrick (that will take up less than a few
tenths of a percent of the total available land area in that region).


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3162b6af-b7b6-43c7-9b08-1e6de3d09dcf@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> > "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > I think we should
>> >> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
>> >> build
>> >> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
>> >> over
>> >> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income
>> >> for
>> >> the year (past years).
>>
>> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>>
>> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
>> let
>> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand.
>
> OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
> world supply...


Considering that Exxon estimates that we have only used 1/3 of the world
reserves I don't think I am going to be around to see us be in control.
We'll only be around to see us go broke.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

> OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
> world supply...

That's maybe the saving grace ... the proven reserves we don't tap now
remain for more sane times, or for the Chinese when we're gone.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ummm, have you checked Exxon's latest quarterly profit? [hint: it wasn't
> up] From Forbe's.com: "The latest results fell short of the record $11.7
> billion in earnings Exxon Mobil reported in the fourth quarter of 2007."
> Earnings for the first quarter were $10.9 billion.

And for those dismal numbers their stock took a four percent hit
yesterday, down $3.47/share to $80-something. It seems their worldwide
production is down some 10%.
Go figure.

Dave in Houston

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
>> paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>
> In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54 if I
> worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much different from
> the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than today :-).

You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a minimum
of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was only available
in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

> Of course since those meetings were secret,
> and no one in the Justice Department has had
> the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
> Congress about attending them, we may never
> know.

Starting with Congress first would perhaps provide some incentive ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Dave in Houston wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>
> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
> us theirs?
> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
> $49 billion profit?

Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>
> Whoever said there is no honor among thieves was right.

Check out MicroSoft. $51 billion total revenue with $14 billion profit
- or 27 cents on the dollar! They did pay $6 billion in income tax.
With that big of margin, I wonder why they charge so much since they
have over 90% of their market? Oh, that's right, they're in business to
make money for their investors, which includes my IRA funds.

I'm happy I invested in Exxon-Mobil - took the sting out of the current
market downturn.

>
> Dave in Houston
>
>

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
> does that they control the price on the world market.

Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
$49 billion profit?

Whoever said there is no honor among thieves was right.

Dave in Houston

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tSPPj.3485$nb4.892@trnddc08...
>
> "LRod" wrote:
>
>> I don't know what "many years ago" is to you, but it takes me back to
>> my yout of the '50s, when regular was commonly 22¢ a gallon or
>> thereabouts.
>
> Along about that time gas wars were common in Detroit.
>
> Would hear stories about $0.16-$0.18 sometimers as low as $0.15/gal from
> people who had just been to Detroit.
>
> Of course, to put things in perspective, minimum wage was $050/hr for part
> time help and had gotten all the way to $1.00/hr for a 40 hour week by
> thye time I graduated from hiogh school.
>
> Still remember going to the Amoco station and filling up my motorcycle
> (less than 2 gal) with their super Hi-Test for $0.50 which lasted ALL
> week.
>
>
I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

"Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
> cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
> country.

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
Who knew?

Dave in Houston

The internet is still free, but not for long under the FALSE guise of
National Security...
Spread the word far and wide! Many won't believe but a few literate people
WILL and if we can reach enough, soon enough, perhaps we can avoid what is
beginning to seem inevitable.
Tom
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm


"Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ZeFPj.35553$%[email protected]...
> Hi Guys and Gals,
> I have been made aware of some things suspected in the back of my mind.
> Check these out investigate and make your own decisions,
> Tom
> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
> http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3172008_Bear_Stearns.asp
>
>

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3172008_Bear_Stearns.asp
>
> Old news that just proves a few sheep are finally looking up, but much too
> late.
>
> Your freedom and sovereignty has been bartered to the highest global
> corporate bidder by your politicians. As of this week in NOLA, this
> country,
> once cherished and fought for, is history, and there is not a damn thing
> you
> can do about it.
>
> Besides, who gives a rat's ass as long as you can watch American Idol,
> right
> after the network evening news.


Take in mind also the further proof that politicians and big business are in
bed together.

My son was looking at the Exxon annual report, public information, between
2003 and 2007 Exxon's sales have almost doubled. No doubt, the gasoline
prices have almost doubled. The gross profit however has almost tippled.
So when they say the prices of oil has gone up they also mean that their
mark up on those prices have increased by an additional 50% over the last 4
years also. Congress investigates to appease the public and we hear nothing
except that there was no law broken. What Congress does not tell us is
really why the price of gasoline is going up. They don't want to look for
a solution, like getting rid of the law that prohibits new refineries from
being built. They don't want to show how the oil company mergers have wiped
out half of their competition. Then take into consideration that the oil
companies don't participate in price fixing. HA! For price fixing they
would all have to get together to agree on a price. That would be illegal.
Let the ignorant media do that dirty work for us. One of the oil companies
will indicate to a reporter that oil prices have gone up and gasoline prices
are going to go up in a few weeks. The reporter on national TV reports this
information for all to see including all the other oil companies. The news
report is the trigger for all the other oil companies to raise their prices
and oddly all on the same day.
Do you remember in the not so distant past when the news rarely mentioned
anything about gasoline prices and those prices were more stable? I agree
that the rising price of oil is part of the problem but the rising price of
oil does not cause gross profits to increase an additional 50% in 4 years.

And then this morning there was the Expert from Consumer Reports indicating
that is a waste of money to put premium fuel in a car that only requires
regular fuel. That was true before there were computers, knock sensors and
fuel injection in the modern car. I assure you my son and I both get about
10% better gas mileage by using premium fuel over regular.
Simply put, higher octane fuels help to decrease the chance of engine knock.
The computer can control engine knock/ping by listening through the engine
knock sensor. If the computer hears a knock it retards the ignition timing
electronically. Retarding the timing gets rid of the knock and decreases
power and fuel economy. If the computer detects no knock it will advance
the ignition timing until knocking is detected. Advancing ignition timing
increases performance and in turn fuel economy. Remember, higher octane
fuel is less likely to create engine knock than regular fuel.
Premium fuel is a benefit if the mileage increase percentage is more than
the price difference percentage. As fuel prices increase the percentage of
price difference between premium and regular fuel tends to be less. Many
years ago premium was commonly 50% more expensive than regular. Today it is
about 8% more expensive.

Rant off. ;~)

Renata wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>> us theirs?
>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>> $49 billion profit?
>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>
> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> Renata
>
>
I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
income was $40 billion.

"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>
> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are
> selling us theirs?
> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
> $49 billion profit?
>
> Whoever said there is no honor among thieves was right.
>
> Dave in Houston
>

Some people believe that they have to charge world market prices.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:tSPPj.3485$nb4.892
@trnddc08:

>
> "LRod" wrote:
>
>> I don't know what "many years ago" is to you, but it takes me back
>> to
>> my yout of the '50s, when regular was commonly 22¢ a gallon or
>> thereabouts.
>
> Along about that time gas wars were common in Detroit.
>
> Would hear stories about $0.16-$0.18 sometimers as low as $0.15/gal
> from people who had just been to Detroit.
>
> Of course, to put things in perspective, minimum wage was $050/hr for
> part time help and had gotten all the way to $1.00/hr for a 40 hour
> week by thye time I graduated from hiogh school.
>
> Still remember going to the Amoco station and filling up my motorcycle
> (less than 2 gal) with their super Hi-Test for $0.50 which lasted ALL
> week.
>
>

The least I ever paid for gas in the USA was $.119. This was in 1957 at
many stations along 'gasoline alley (Columbus Ave.)' in Springfield Mass.
during the gas wars. Had a '41 Ford coupe with a '48 Merc 59AB block.
Triple Fenton manifold mounting Stromberg 98s (or was it 97s?). Had a three
quarter cam and Edelbrock 10:1 heads. Headers and the loudest glass packs
in the state. I could beat most showroom Chevy's, but vettes were a
problem. I loved the flatheads, but I knew the era was over.

Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Renata wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected].
>>>>> com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
>>>>> selling us
>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
>>>>> are selling us theirs?
>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
>>>>> of their $49 billion profit?
>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
>>>> on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>
>>> Renata
>>>
>>>
>>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
>>net income was $40 billion.
>
> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>
> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
> the "rest of the story".
>
> Renata

You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
the year (past years).

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cEAQj.540$To6.404
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
> I think we should
>> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
>> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
>> over
>> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
>> the year (past years).
>
>
> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
>
>

Absolutely not. But they didn't drill any; did they. Why do we have to pay
their 'oil depetion allowance'? Nobody pays my 'I had a shitty year
allowance'.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> I think we should
>>> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
>>> build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper.
>>> Any profit over
>>> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income
>>> for the year (past years).
>>
>>
>> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
> let
> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience
> some caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of
> several million), or we might endanger some previously unknown
> "endangered" microbe or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices
> going up now because of the required cafe blends for each specific
> city that requires refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
> Only when people get angry enough at the shenanigans going on to
> thwart production and distribution is this problem going to get
> solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous earth-worshipping
> luddites preventing progress and trying to force people to buy
> indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
> which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the
> problem. It will, however have the effect of providing lots of money
> and power to the people espousing these policies (who, will of course
> not alter their lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and
> lower the quality of life and remove freedoms from the rest of us.
> Until and unless people wake up to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for
> a lot more of the same.
>
>

Yup. It's interesting that Cuba (with China's help) can drill on our
Continental shelf. Mexico can drill in the gulf and we can't. The aging
hippies and trust fund babies (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
country. Yes, conservation is a nice thing and everyone should own a Hybrid
Prius eventhough it's an ugly fucking car and the price of the Prius over a
non-hybrid will take 4 or 5 years to reach the break even point between
price of car and gas price. I am going to sell my carbon credits so I can
buy a new truck. I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
project that changed their mind, over a vacant field.

Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:02608760$0$26905
[email protected]:

> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:c0dca470-8712-456e-8c35-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On Apr 28, 12:08 am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
>>> project that changed their mind, over a vacant field.      
>>
>> Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
>> mower to cut it.
>>
>
> Yeah, and that lawn mower uses more gas than the Prius!
>
> Puckdropper

Yeah, but the lawn mower is better looking than that ugly fucking Prius.

"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
>> cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of
>> this country.
>
> WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
> policy
> meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
> regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
> 4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
> (not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?
>
> Dave in Houston
>
>
>

Oviously not you. $.79 a gallon, 1979?, Must have been Cheney. It's really
sad that we pay less than half per gallon than most of the world (although
recently I think we are paying more than half). I don't think Hallburton is
into oil. They may transport it though.

Hank

Lets kill the rich, then we can work for the poor.

Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote in
news:6b64323e-237c-4797-96d1-9d2f327ba083@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> > "Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > I think we should
>> >> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
>> >> build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper.
>> >> Any profit over
>> >> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
>> >> income for the year (past years).
>>
>> > So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>>
>> From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil
>> to let
>> us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience
>> some caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of
>> several million), or we might endanger some previously unknown
>> "endangered" microbe or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices
>> going up now because of the required cafe blends for each specific
>> city that requires refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
>> Only when people get angry enough at the shenanigans going on to
>> thwart production and distribution is this problem going to get
>> solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous earth-worshipping
>> luddites preventing progress and trying to force people to buy
>> indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
>> which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the
>> problem. It will, however have the effect of providing lots of money
>> and power to the people espousing these policies (who, will of course
>> not alter their lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and
>> lower the quality of life and remove freedoms from the rest of us.
>> Until and unless people wake up to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for
>> a lot more of the same.
>>
>> --
>
> Aw, c'mon, Mark. Didn't you hear that Gore put in solar panels on his
> mansion? Dunno if he did the same on his jet, but...it always strikes
> me as wonderful how much money these guys make out of telling the rest
> of us to live frugally, green, and wipe our butts an extra stroke in
> the process, without wasting paper.
>
> There's a big "Save The Trees" movement against printed junk mail,
> these days. I don't like junk mail, but I do realize that 90+% of the
> paper that goes into it, and most other printed material, is
> specifically planted and nurtured for just that purpose, to make
> paper. We're not dealing with virgin forests, but, essentially, with
> cropland.
>
> But, hey, we don't want the natives getting restless. That would be
> like wondering how Jesse Jackson, a preacher without any church,
> always manages to make over a quarter million a year.
>
> Many liberal policies make sense, but not even close to all.
>
>

Charlie, check Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharepton again. A quarter of a
million to them is chump change. The Reverend Sharpton pays more for his
hairdo (whoops), I mean haircut, than President Clinton, Senator Kerry
and Senator Edwards combined. Up here in Windham, NY, I pay (still have a
pretty good head of hair) $12 and that includes a 20% tip.

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> depictureboy wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Renata wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
>>>>>>>>>> selling us
>>>>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the
>>>>>>>>>> Saudis are selling us theirs?
>>>>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good
>>>>>>>>>> chunk of their $49 billion profit?
>>>>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10
>>>>>>>>> cents on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross.
>>>>>>> Their net income was $40 billion.
>>>>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that
>>>>>> they paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on
>>>>>> 72B gross is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near
>>>>>> 42% these days. Something smells funny here. I see the numbers,
>>>>>> I just want to know the "rest of the story".
>>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
>>>> Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
>>>> the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
>>>> their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
>>>> guvmint.
>>> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not,
>>> somebody is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would
>>> cry publicly as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for
>>> all big corporations. By the time you add in federal and state
>>> gasoline taxes (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes),
>>> who do think is making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business -
>>> Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?
>>
>> Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
>> per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
>> actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.
>
> That's what I was referring to when I mention "federal and state
> gasoline tax" - currently averaging 47 cents per gallon. And since
> any corporation figures income tax as a cost of doing business, we
> rather than Exxon-Mobil pay their $30 billion income tax. If they get
> hit with a "windfall profits tax", they will simply raise the price of
> their goods and we will pick up the tab.
>

The federal tax is $.18 per gallon. All other taxes are state and local.

Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1ff807d5-6207-4908-9287-8195c4040d5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
>> >> I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>>
>> > In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
>> > if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
>> > different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
>> > today :-).
>>
>> You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
>> minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
>> only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.
>
> In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
> Amoco's primary selling point.
>
> My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
> even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
> Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
> Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.
>

Out of the showroom?

Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1ff807d5-6207-4908-9287-8195c4040d5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
>> >> I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>>
>> > In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
>> > if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
>> > different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
>> > today :-).
>>
>> You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
>> minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
>> only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.
>
> In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
> Amoco's primary selling point.
>
> My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
> even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
> Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
> Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.
>

I could take most '57s. Couldn't take vettes that had a driver. A good '57
power pack with a driver could take me at least half the time (if not
more). I was running a '41 ford coupe, '48 59AB block Merc bored and
stroked. Had Edelbrock 10:1 heads, Fenton triple manifold, running
Strombergs. Had an Edelbrock 3/4 cam that I screwed around with. Polished
valves, and light springs. Was running a Linc Zepher trans with a 4:11
rear. Pissed me off when stuff out of the showroom was beating me. I guess
I ushered out the 'Flathead era'. Left me no choice, but to join the
crotch.

Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:55a67a8e-8e91-41e8-8afd-593ce64c240e@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 29, 1:33 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door
>> > energy policy
>> > meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
>> > regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
>> > 4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
>> > (not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?
>>
>>...
>>
>> and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company
>> declare
>> we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build
>> more refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?
>
> Probably right before the part about how we
> were going to invade Iraq.
>
> Of course since those meetings were secret,
> and no one in the Justice Department has had
> the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
> Congress about attending them, we may never
> know.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>
>

Actully President Bush and his cabinet were quite open with their
intentions. Now that you have enlightened us. The USA should communicate
all its intentions and secrets to the rest of the world. If we have spies,
or wish to to invade a peaceful country or a non-peaceful country, we will
call CNN to broadcast to the world. Might kill a few troops, but what the
fuck. Actually, we should just tell congress; about the same.
I don't know who's lying and what they're lying about. There has been only
one convicted liar and his wife seems to be cast in the same mould
(fuckin' snipers all over the place).

Dave - Parkville, MD wrote:
> On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Renata wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>>>>>>> us theirs?
>>>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>>>>>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>>>>>> income was $40 billion.
>>>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>>>>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>>>>> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>>>>> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>>>>> the "rest of the story".
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
>>> Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
>>> the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
>>> their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
>>> guvmint.
>> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
>> is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would cry publicly
>> as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
>> corporations. By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
>> (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
>> making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The taxes you see on the income tax line of the income statement are
> ONLY taxes based on income, not fuel taxes or payroll taxes.
>
> Dave - Parkville

If you re-read my post, I think you'll find that's the essence of what I
said.

Around that time I was driving a 1965 GTO would only run on Sunco 260 at .31
or it would ping and knock something terrible now it is more than ten times
that amount for the 85 octane crap they allow to be sold in New Mexico.
First worked in an Exxon station Regular was .27 with Green Stamps and often
glasses of other crazy stuff thrown in.

--
Mike
Watch for the bounce.
If ya didn't see it, ya didn't feel it.
If ya see it, it didn't go off.
Old Air Force Munitions Saying
IYAAYAS
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
>>> paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.
>>
>> In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54 if I
>> worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much different
>> from
>> the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than today :-).
>
> You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a minimum
> of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was only
> available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.
>
>
>
>
>

"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:25:39 -0500, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Many years ago premium was commonly 50% more expensive
>>than regular. Today it is about 8% more expensive.
>
> I don't know what "many years ago" is to you, but it takes me back to
> my yout of the '50s, when regular was commonly 22¢ a gallon or
> thereabouts. We were never premium users, so I can't say with
> certainty that it wasn't 11¢ higher but I'd be very surprised if it
> was. When I was doing my commuting during the '60s regular was still
> relatively low, ranging from 28¢ to 34¢, but I am fairly certain
> premium (or any gas) was not over 40¢ then.

When I was 19 and still living in Corpus Christi I vividly recall paying
19.9 for regular and premium was 29.9 at the local Shamrock station. I was
able to enjoy that one time. Normmally the gas in the early 70's was 22-25
for reg and 32-35 for premium.


>
> I remember well the gas lines of the '70s and when the price started
> creeping toward $1, but premium was never $1.50 until much later. Even
> closer to now as we've gone past $1.50, $2.00, $2.50, and $3.00 I
> don't ever remember seeing premium at half again as much.


See above, I never could understand how some could afford to pay 35 cents
for premium. Keep in mind that Corpus Christi had and has lots of
refineries.


>
> It would be my assessment that the 8% you quoted to 10 or even 15% is
> actually closer to the historical record. I can't imagine it was ever
> "commonly 50% more expensive." That doesn't jibe with my memory.

Sorry you can't temember but it was.... I was in the automotive business
even then going to school and working part time, I kept a close eye on all
those prices. Pennziol 30W was 32 cents per quart, Havoline was 28 cents
per quart. Uniflow 10-40 was 34 cents.


>
> Of course even when Sunoco had pumps with about six or more selections
> of grade (remember 260?) I'll bet there wasn't as much as a 50%
> premium from lowest to highest grade.
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Some people believe that they have to charge world market prices.

Of course they do. If it's not stockholders demanding that world market
prices be met, then some rich conglomerate would buy all the gas at the
lower price and immediately bump it up to world market prices making an
immediate, immense profit.

On Apr 28, 11:31=A0am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Renata wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Renata wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Renata wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:[email protected].=
com...
>
> >>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are =
selling us
> >>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis ar=
e selling
> >>>>>>> us theirs?
> >>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk =
of their
> >>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
> >>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents o=
n the
> >>>>>> dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
> >>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> >>>>> Renata
>
> >>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Thei=
r net
> >>>> income was $40 billion.
> >>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they=

> >>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gros=
s
> >>> is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.=
=A0
>
> >>> Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to know=

> >>> the "rest of the story".
> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=3DXOM&annual
>
> > Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. =A0Can't imagine that, if this is
> > the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
> > their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
> > guvmint. =A0
>
> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
> is going to the slammer. =A0I also don't know why they would cry publicly
> as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
> corporations. =A0By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
> (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
> making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint=
?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The taxes you see on the income tax line of the income statement are
ONLY taxes based on income, not fuel taxes or payroll taxes.

Dave - Parkville

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:25:39 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Many years ago premium was commonly 50% more expensive
>than regular. Today it is about 8% more expensive.

I don't know what "many years ago" is to you, but it takes me back to
my yout of the '50s, when regular was commonly 22¢ a gallon or
thereabouts. We were never premium users, so I can't say with
certainty that it wasn't 11¢ higher but I'd be very surprised if it
was. When I was doing my commuting during the '60s regular was still
relatively low, ranging from 28¢ to 34¢, but I am fairly certain
premium (or any gas) was not over 40¢ then.

I remember well the gas lines of the '70s and when the price started
creeping toward $1, but premium was never $1.50 until much later. Even
closer to now as we've gone past $1.50, $2.00, $2.50, and $3.00 I
don't ever remember seeing premium at half again as much.

It would be my assessment that the 8% you quoted to 10 or even 15% is
actually closer to the historical record. I can't imagine it was ever
"commonly 50% more expensive." That doesn't jibe with my memory.

Of course even when Sunoco had pumps with about six or more selections
of grade (remember 260?) I'll bet there wasn't as much as a 50%
premium from lowest to highest grade.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Apr 25, 7:29=A0am, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Renata wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> >>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are sel=
ling us
> >>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are s=
elling
> >>>> us theirs?
> >>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of =
their
> >>>> $49 billion profit?
> >>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on t=
he
> >>> dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>
> >> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> >> Renata
>
> >I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Their ne=
t
> >income was $40 billion.
>
> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gross
> is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days. =A0=

>
> Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to know
> the "rest of the story".
>
> Renata- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not true.

U.S. companies are typically at around 41% (35% federal and 7-8%
state, less federal deduction for state taxes).

Dave - Parkville

On Apr 28, 12:08=A0am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:


> I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
> project that changed their mind, over a vacant field. =A0 =A0 =A0

Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
mower to cut it.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Oh, my. In '54, '55, I worked in a service station/garage. We were in
>Westchester County, NY, a high end place if one every existed, so we
>got 28.9 cents per gallon for regular, 32.9 for extra (Esso), and,
>when Esso Golden Extra (AKA avgas) came out, it was 38.9.

28.9/32.9 is exactly the sort of differential I recall, and 38.9 for
avgas (whether it's marketd as auto fuel or not) would be about right,
too.

Of course in those days it would have been one of four grades of
avgas, and for that price, it was almost assuredly 80/87 (red). I'm
sure it wouldn't have been 115/145 (green or purple? I've forgotten).

I remember making a drive from Jacksonville down to Hollywood in 1969
or '70 and stopping in Vero Beach for gas. There had been some kind of
spike (probably interstate premium) and they wanted something like 38¢
a gallon when I'd been paying more like 31¢. I pitched a fit pointing
out I could get 80/87 at the nearby airport (and had just a week or so
before) for 41¢. They were unmoved.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
I think we should
> stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
> refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
> over
> 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
> the year (past years).


So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

On Apr 28, 11:31=A0am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Renata wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Renata wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Renata wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:[email protected].=
com...
>
> >>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, =A0But enough
> >>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are =
selling us
> >>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis ar=
e selling
> >>>>>>> us theirs?
> >>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk =
of their
> >>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
> >>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents o=
n the
> >>>>>> dollar. =A0The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
> >>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying =A0$30B income tax on $40B net.
>
> >>>>> Renata
>
> >>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. =A0Thei=
r net
> >>>> income was $40 billion.
> >>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they=

> >>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? =A0Even 30B on 72B gros=
s
> >>> is way high. =A0Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.=
=A0
>
> >>> Something smells funny here. =A0I see the numbers, I just want to know=

> >>> the "rest of the story".
> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=3DXOM&annual
>
> > Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. =A0Can't imagine that, if this is
> > the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
> > their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
> > guvmint. =A0
>
> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
> is going to the slammer. =A0I also don't know why they would cry publicly
> as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
> corporations. =A0By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
> (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
> making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint=
?

Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:44:43 -0500, "Tom Bunetta"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Swing,
>I guess that one slipped by me NOLA? A search gave mostly New Orleans hits.

Bingo. Swingman's a coon ass of the first order.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

depictureboy wrote:
> On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Renata wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>>>>>>> us theirs?
>>>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>>>>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>>>>>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>>>>>> income was $40 billion.
>>>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>>>>> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>>>>> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>>>>> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>>>>> the "rest of the story".
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
>>> Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
>>> the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
>>> their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
>>> guvmint.
>> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
>> is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would cry publicly
>> as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
>> corporations. By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
>> (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
>> making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?
>
> Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
> per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
> actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.

That's what I was referring to when I mention "federal and state
gasoline tax" - currently averaging 47 cents per gallon. And since any
corporation figures income tax as a cost of doing business, we rather
than Exxon-Mobil pay their $30 billion income tax. If they get hit with
a "windfall profits tax", they will simply raise the price of their
goods and we will pick up the tab.

On Apr 23, 8:22 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > News? I don't think I've seen actual news on television since the
> > dawn of CNN.
>
> Can you spell "facetious"? <g>
>
> (I know you can, but I'm not so sure about _many_ others)

Well, I'll admit I have trouble with it. I though when you were
talking about television news it was spelled "fictitious". No?

Robert

"Tom Bunetta" wrote
> Hi Guys and Gals,
> I have been made aware of some things suspected in the back of my mind.
> Check these out investigate and make your own decisions,
> Tom
> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
> http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3172008_Bear_Stearns.asp

Old news that just proves a few sheep are finally looking up, but much too
late.

Your freedom and sovereignty has been bartered to the highest global
corporate bidder by your politicians. As of this week in NOLA, this country,
once cherished and fought for, is history, and there is not a damn thing you
can do about it.

Besides, who gives a rat's ass as long as you can watch American Idol, right
after the network evening news.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:22:59 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Frank Boettcher" wrote
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:01:58 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>> >
>> >Besides, who gives a rat's ass as long as you can watch American Idol,
>right
>> >after the network evening news.
>>
>>
>> News? I don't think I've seen actual news on television since the
>> dawn of CNN.
>
>Can you spell "facetious"? <g>

Not without a working spell checker I can't. Alas, the long term
result of relying on same. Do know what it means though.
>
>
>(I know you can, but I'm not so sure about _many_ others)

Probably should have added a grin to the last statement in my post,
but experience tells me the regular posters and identified lurkers
seem to have their wits about them.

Frank

Renata wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Renata wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>>> us theirs?
>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>
>>> Renata
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>> income was $40 billion.
>
> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
> paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
> is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>
> Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
> the "rest of the story".

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Somebody wrote:
>
>> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
>
> 10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
> "Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
> lifetime".
>
> This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
> patch".
>
> I agreed.
>
> Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
> will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
> environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.
>
> The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
> about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
> it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
> refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
> refinery.
>
> As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.
>
> Lew
Damn 1 good lawyer in 10,000 now that's not likely to happen again.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

Somebody wrote:

> So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
"Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
lifetime".

This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
patch".

I agreed.

Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.

The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
refinery.

As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.

Lew

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:

> I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
> paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54 if I
worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much different from
the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than today :-).

Often times I'd make midnight rounds of the gas stations with a couple of
buddies and drain the hoses into our motorcycle gas tanks. Sometimes
getting enough gas to run 100 miles. For free!

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:29:07 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Renata wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:29215c1e-467a-4a67-b1ba-30bf534e382e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
>>>>> us theirs?
>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
>>>>> $49 billion profit?
>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
>>>> dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>
>>> Renata
>>>
>>>
>>I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
>>income was $40 billion.
>
>But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
>paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
>is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
>
>Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
>the "rest of the story".
>
>Renata


Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,
2000

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%



Plus applicable state, plus any capital gains which are not favored on
the corporate level.

Hank wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> depictureboy wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Renata wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dave in Houston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> does that they control the price on the world market.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
>>>>>>>>>>> selling us
>>>>>>>>>>> their domestically produced crude for the same price the
>>>>>>>>>>> Saudis are selling us theirs?
>>>>>>>>>>> Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good
>>>>>>>>>>> chunk of their $49 billion profit?
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10
>>>>>>>>>> cents on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
>>>>>>>>> I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
>>>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>>>> I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross.
>>>>>>>> Their net income was $40 billion.
>>>>>>> But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that
>>>>>>> they paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on
>>>>>>> 72B gross is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near
>>>>>>> 42% these days. Something smells funny here. I see the numbers,
>>>>>>> I just want to know the "rest of the story".
>>>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
>>>>> Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
>>>>> the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
>>>>> their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
>>>>> guvmint.
>>>> I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not,
>>>> somebody is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would
>>>> cry publicly as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for
>>>> all big corporations. By the time you add in federal and state
>>>> gasoline taxes (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes),
>>>> who do think is making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business -
>>>> Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?
>>> Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
>>> per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
>>> actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.
>> That's what I was referring to when I mention "federal and state
>> gasoline tax" - currently averaging 47 cents per gallon. And since
>> any corporation figures income tax as a cost of doing business, we
>> rather than Exxon-Mobil pay their $30 billion income tax. If they get
>> hit with a "windfall profits tax", they will simply raise the price of
>> their goods and we will pick up the tab.
>>
>
> The federal tax is $.18 per gallon. All other taxes are state and local.

Yes, that's what I said - federal and state averages 47 cents per
gallon. Since federal is 18.6 cents for gasoline (24.6 cents for
diesel), the average state tax is 29 cents per gallon.