As she salivates at the possible funds she could forcibly take from an industry that has enjoyed the benefits of a secular rise in commodity prices and "better" use them as she sees fit.
"I want to take those profits [which were not created by the government and are now owned by the government]..."
Mark my words, there is a reason why this woman is unfit to be President and why she will not get elected.
I'd love to hear from Capitalizt on this one!
Magnetonium
I am starting to like Hillary Clinton!!! You go girl!!! Corporations should serve us the people like they did in USA after the Revolution ;-)
This is just my opinion of course, I dont have scientific evidence to suggest its better than current money drain
She is destined to lose the election talking about corporations, the voter deciders and election financing zombies, like that!
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium
Corporations should serve us the people like they did in USA after the Revolution ;-)
Corporations serve their owners/shareholders first. I don't disagree that there should be a benefit to the people--and there certainly are benefits as we buy everything they produce. However, the government didn't create that wealth, so it is not theirs to take at the point of a gun. If you want a piece of Exxon, I suggest you go buy a few shares. It's not like the government is going to give you any of what they wrongfully take.
Zild
I think considering the fact that energy is a necessity, and that oil corporations are posting record profits while Americans are paying ridulous prices for gasoline show that something is wrong. I know we pay a large gas tax as well. I think there is room with something to be done. I'm definitely not saying I agree with Clinton. I wouldn't not vote for her if she were running or for any other Democrat for that matter.
Capitalizt
:scowls and points finger in the air:
:thinks about responding:
:walks away:
MisterOpus1
Aside of the fact that I will not be voting for her unless she wins the primary (provided someone like Hagel wins it for the Republicans), her comments are a bit funny not just for the reason that you mentioned, but the fact that she's by far the BIGGEST beltway candidates who's getting corporate donations hand over foot for her campaign.
Besides, as I've said before, she has such a gigantic target on her back for the Right Wing Noise Machine, just waiting to slime her with every ounce of muster they've got. You think Kerry and the '04 election was slimy, this sucker will leave that in the dust. Actually I think any Pres. election will be slimy and a smearfest, but it'll be a downright fest if she wins the primary.
Anyway, I do think that she has a rather small point to be made about these record corporate profits from our oil folks. While I applaud any company for making such profits as it's a definite sign of company success, what I don't appreciate is the obvious bull rhetoric that they give the public to which most folks either shrug or buy into. For example, this op-ed by Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute stated the following:
quote:
That is great news because it means the company will have more funds to reinvest in exploration, refinery expansion, drilling platforms, chemical plants, and all those other brilliant machines that American families benefit from every day.
The firm invested $20 billion in exploration, structures, and equipment in 2006...
So $20 billion got invested in exploration, structures, and equipment for the purpose of this:
quote:
High profits are a signal to ExxonMobil management, other energy companies, and Wall Street to feed this industry more capital and to continue increasing energy production. That’s good news for U.S. energy security and U.S. consumers.
All this is supposedly good for our economy and the American consumer, right?
Well a funny thing happened on the way to reading ExxonMobile's latest quarterly earnings:
You see, in there we see that a natural gas production increase to 9,334 mcfd, only 83 mcfd from 2005 or about 1%. Furthermore, petroleum sales of "7,247 kbd decreased from 7,519 kbd in 2005, primarily due to lower refining throughput and divestments."
Can someone explain how a company like ExxonMobile is somehow using their profits to increase energy production when their latest quarterly report clearly indicates otherwise? According to that quarterly report, ExxonMobile produced and processed LESS oil in refineries in 2006, yet still managed to ironically have the biggest profit for any company in American history.
Something else was interesting to note as well. In that quarterly report we see that "gross share purchases in 2006 were $29.6 billion which reduced shares outstanding by 6.6%." Which if I'm reading that correctly, that means that there was almost $30 billion invested in buying back its own stock, compared to the reported $20 billion spent on capital investment for equipment and stuff for energy production. This would appear to indicate that ExxonMobile believes its stock is a better investment than additional production capacity. Can anyone explain why this is so, especially if they are supposedly so invested in increasing energy production?
Lastly, this was interesting as well to note:
quote:
Earnings outside the U.S., excluding special items, were $21,062 million, $4,533 million higher than 2005
and the total profits were only up from $36.1 billion to $35.5 billion, or 3.4 billion, meaning that ExxonMobile's U.S. profits actually fell by about $1.1 billion. Can someone explain how that's somehow good for the U.S. economy?
Shakka
Aside from *applauding* their success, you libs just can't stand it when big business makes big profits, can you? Unless they did something illegal or highly unethical to obtain those profits, it just sounds like whining to me. And yes they certainly should invest in the future, but that doesn't mean governments should be able to determine what is too much wealth. Anyway, you went on a lengthy tirade, while I am more focused on the exact wording that came out of Hillary's mouth. If it were anyone else, I might think I'm reading too much into it. But this is Hillary we're talking about. A slippery chameleon if ever there was one.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Aside from *applauding* their success, you libs just can't stand it when big business makes big profits, can you? Unless they did something illegal or highly unethical to obtain those profits, it just sounds like whining to me. And yes they certainly should invest in the future, but that doesn't mean governments should be able to determine what is too much wealth. Anyway, you went on a lengthy tirade, while I am more focused on the exact wording that came out of Hillary's mouth. If it were anyone else, I might think I'm reading too much into it. But this is Hillary we're talking about. A slippery chameleon if ever there was one.
No more slippery than any given Republican candidate right now. Hell, people can write a book on McCain and Romney's flip-flops and indecisiveness.
Regardless, I agree with what you specifically noted in her speech as troubling. However I did think the larger point I brought out is worth further examination. I don't have a problem with any capitalistic endeavor, but I will hold their rhetoric up to scrutiny when they supposedly say how much they invest in energy production when their reports clearly show the exact opposite.
Great, they made a profit. Just don't try to bull the public as to what and how you made it. And furthermore, can I please have my ing tax $ back that you Republicans continually gave away to these oil boys as corporate welfare? For folks that believe in capitalism, that's really not very consistent of you. I could also discuss the lack of capitalistic values with your Administration and Healthcare, but I'll save that for another thread.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And furthermore, can I please have my ing tax $ back that you Republicans continually gave away to these oil boys as corporate welfare? For folks that believe in capitalism, that's really not very consistent of you. I could also discuss the lack of capitalistic values with your Administration and Healthcare, but I'll save that for another thread.
No argument here. Take away any and all subsidies. However, oil companies got no love when oil prices were under $20/bbl, but suddenly industry trends are heavily in their favor and they are demonized.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
No argument here. Take away any and all subsidies. However, oil companies got no love when oil prices were under $20/bbl, but suddenly industry trends are heavily in their favor and they are demonized.
Well what exactly are the "industry trends", and how exactly did they boost oil production up to, what, almost 4x that amount last summer? You mean to tell me that was soley do to "industry trends"? I can't help but be a wee bit skeptical of that claim in of itself, but as I said I won't knock any company for making a profit provided they do so legally (and I see no illegality here to my knowledge).
policerobots
damn, havent logged on here in a while, and Shakka and Opus are still here in the political forums!
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well what exactly are the "industry trends", and how exactly did they boost oil production up to, what, almost 4x that amount last summer?
Industry trends being a variety of things like increased oil prices due to secular demand from China, India and other emerging markets. Higher premiums on oil due to escalated geopolitical tensions and the fact that most oil comes from more unstable, potentially hostile locales. Scores of gas-hungry SUVs on roads. Scores of hedge funds and other investors that create huge swings in commodity prices, etc, etc.
quote:
You mean to tell me that was soley do to "industry trends"? I can't help but be a wee bit skeptical of that claim in of itself, but as I said I won't knock any company for making a profit provided they do so legally (and I see no illegality here to my knowledge).
I wasn't necessarily chalking everything up to "industry trends," rather just pointing out that current trends are obviously heavily in their favor. No doubt some credit should be given where good management and corporate structure/finance/business model have played a role.
