Obama Wants to 'Robin Hood' Exxon 54 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last week, the Democrats’ Anointed One, Barack Obama, used a town hall meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida, to outline a new $50 billion economic “stimulus” plan. The purchase of his prospective electorate is to be paid for by a “windfall tax” on oil company profits.
Obama said he wants Congress to approve another round of economic stimulus checks of around $1,000 for the average household by fall.
“The notion that oil companies that have been making record profits, hand over fist, can’t give a little bit of that back to make sure that not just drivers but senior citizens on fixed income are going to have the ability to pay for heating this winter, which is going to be a huge potential problem — I don’t think that’s too much to ask,” he said in an NPR interview with Michelle Norris.
Indeed, for those unfamiliar with the term “margins,” the numbers reported by Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) indeed look high. “Record,” even. Hand-over-fist,” as Democrats and presidential candidates would say. XOM reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion last Thursday: Net income for the April-June period came to $2.22 a share, up from $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, a year ago.
Total revenue rose 40 percent to $138.1 billion from $98.4 billion in the year-earlier quarter. For the first six months of 2008, Exxon Mobil said it earned $22.57 billion, or $4.25 a share, from $19.54 billion, or $3.45 a share, in the first half of 2007.
Which works out to a margin of… drum roll… 8.9%.
Our modern Robin Hood has discovered an additional source of popularity that could cinch the presidency for him: Companies making 9% profits.
I’d just love to help out. Here’s a great tool for Democrats to uncover more companies with “windfall” profits: The Yahoo Stock Screener! It’s a veritable divining rod for evil capitalists: Specify all those capitalist bloodsuckers making more than 10% on their revenues and you come up with 2,338 publicly traded companies.
Tax ‘em all and buy all the heating oil, gasoline, and jet skis for everyone who’d vote for him.
There is even a precedent for this strategy to presidential success: Hugo Chavez has quite successfully applied it in Venezuela. Welcome, then, to Petro-Communism Made in USA!
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 54 comments:
I think your point is not fair to middle class Americans who struggle daily with out of control energy prices. America already has less taxes on gasoline than all of Europe - yet you're not accusing them of Petro-Communism and companies like Shell and Total still seem to be making huge profits. Rather than tax consumers further, as is the case in Europe with gas at the pump, further curtailing discretionary spending, Senator Obama is proposing redistributing the wealth from a few wealthy people into the hands of millions of Americans in a way that will stimulate the American consumer. What's un-capitalistic about that?
Comparing the Annointed One's policy to that of Chavez is very appropriate. They both have the same philosphy...take from those who make and give to those who don't. I'd love to see Big OIl just move out of the U.S. so that the greedy tax hogs would find another whipping boy!
But I thought putting air in my tires would make prices come down? "He" said it so it must be so!! Oh Annointed One, how will we all figure out how much air is in our tires without the government telling us? Can't you give us some more money to use to go to the gas station to get someone to read our air pressure and put air in our tires? After all, those mean greedy oil companies have sucked out our will to live on proper inflated tires!!
I believe some people are starting to "get it" as the poll numbers are starting to move to a closer race than anyone in the media would like you to believe. The real Lib's are going to hate the Annointed One as he is flip flopping on all of his real Lib ideas (not that he's changing his mind, just that he's changing his story and telling lies). There are still a lot of Hillary folks who won't vote for him. Very few real conservatives will vote for him. And then there's that group that won't vote for him because he's different (according to the Chosen One's own words). All of them together will make for an interesting mixture. And a large enough group for the Though Police to look after. Maybe we will be able to hide from them!!
The idea of government randomly targeting a business or industry to extort money is the opposite of that: Autocratic, totalitarian... socialist.
But taxing certain groups simply based on a very large number ($55B) is not equitable either. Don't forget that 55 is 10% of 550. Therefore 495 was spent (invested) to earn 55. Yes, I'm talking billions here.
Let's not forget a couple of other "truths". Those of us that read financial articles are probably investing in some sort of fund (for retirement, perhaps). Historically, the stock market has returned from 10-12% per year for almost a century (some up, some down). So we have an individual expectation of seeing that in our own portfolios depending on risk tolerance, age, etc. Don't we? So if we are going to tax profits greater than 10%, then maybe we all should be taxed for returns greater than 10%. Fair is fair, after all. How many of us would change our investing strategies if that were to happen? What impact would that have on the economy?
Finally, many years ago, I managed a restaurant. After labor, food, taxes, depreciation, admin, utilities, (you get the idea) guess what my net profit percent was? About 10%. Is 10% greedy? No. Arguably, 10% is necessary to stay in business. This same analogy can be applied to most retail and service oriented businesses (Mom and Pop). Perhaps you or someone close to you is struggling to make 10% so you/they can pay their bills, send kids to school, and save enough so they don't outlive their savings. Let's tax Mom and Pop, too because they are savvy enough to earn more than 10%. Shall we? If they have a "bumper crop" now and then, let's take some of that from them.
A profit tax is not the answer. I don't know what is, but since this problem touches us all, maybe the answer lies in individual and personal responsibility toward finding the solution rather than pointing fingers at "someone" who is trying to make 10% just like the rest of us. It's real easy to get on the "big bad business bandwagon". But, if you put a limit on what someone can earn, you will limit productivity. Won't you?
On Aug 05 03:01 PM Jonathan Liss, SA Editor wrote:
> To the author,
> I can't believe you said what you did after reading the preceding comments. You believe ExxonMobil makes too much money by looking at only their profits in ABSOLUTE dollars, not as a return on total investment. It's like saying that I'm earning twice as much you do on my bank account if I have $100 in the account and you have only $50. With a 5 percent interest rate, I'll earn $5 dollars in interest. You'll earn only $2.50. Is it unfair that I earn TWICE as much as you do in ABSOLUTE dollars? Educate yourself!
> I think your point is not fair to middle class Americans who struggle
> daily with out of control energy prices. America already has less
> taxes on gasoline than all of Europe - yet you're not accusing them
> of Petro-Communism and companies like Shell and Total still seem
> to be making huge profits. Rather than tax consumers further, as
> is the case in Europe with gas at the pump, further curtailing discretionary
> spending, Senator Obama is proposing redistributing the wealth from
> a few wealthy people into the hands of millions of Americans in a
> way that will stimulate the American consumer. What's un-capitalistic
> about that?
Vote for a lawyer who shucks and jives like gangster.
Obama is a scary man who has somebody's hand up his azz.
A windfall profit tax on the other hand is a concept that liberals (and some middle-of-the-roaders that never had an economics class) can warm up to. That's where or elected officials define what a "windfall profit" is, resulting in the Treasury drafing about 43 volumes of new tax code that lawyers and accountants salivate over while interperting the mess. Then by the time the get it enacted, the commodity cycle swings back and all that money they predicted would be raked in to be given away doesn't materialize. Sound familiar? Sadly its been tried already and led to predictable results, inflation. Does anybody remember the Jimmy Carter years? I mostly remember my 14% mortgage and 50% income tax bracket in a no growth economy. Why does B.O. think it will be different this time you might ask? He doesn't. He is simply saying what people want to hear so he can get elected. Nobody in their right mind believes new taxes can lower the price of anything, stimulate the economy or create jobs. Ladies and gentlemen, grab you wallets if B.O. get elected. Harvard apparently doesn't require Economics 101 for law grads.
1. This inflation we are experiencing is a FED created phenomena. Expansion of the money supply ultimately creates inflation. Rapid expansion of the money supply ultimately creates hyper-inflation.
2. More money in the system puts pressure on a finite amount of goods. Take for example the housing bubble. Lowering interest rates to the floor and allowing anyone and everyone regardless of credit history to borrow money rapidly expands the money supply (yes, we in America have a negative savings rate, so all that borrowed money was created via the loan or as I like to say out of thin air). Now everyone wants to buy a house which puts pressure on the system. This so called bull market (aka inflation) drives price astronomically. We bundle this housing debt and try to pawn it off on the world as triple A rated securities. The housing market collapses and the world dumps these securities as a false hope of repayment, inflation is introduced back into our financial system and commodities rise.
3. So called "Big Oil's" profit margin has always remained the same 8.5%. Big Oil doesn't control the price of oil on the world's market. Big Oil is rather small when you compare it to the state run oil companies of Russia and the Middle East. Big Oil's reserves has a very small influence on the world price for oil.
Big oil makes big profits because 8.5% of $140 a barrel is a lot more than 8.5% of $10 a barrel. Big Oil's expenses to drill for new supply go up astronomically along with the price of oil. Big Oil is taxed heavily with wind falls profit tax. Big Oil doesn't have enough capital to make the necessary investments for future drilling and exploration. Big Oil eventually figures out its not worth being in business when you're taxed heavily while inflation (that expanding money supply) makes production cost prohibitive. The whole system, including those who taxed Big Oil suffers. This scenario has been proven over and over again.
4. Heavy taxation creates apathy, destroys prosperity, and makes everyone poor. Vote it in and see how quickly it kills prosperity.
The rich is powerful enough to protect their money. It's a matter if the rich wants to invest in a country that is founded on heavy taxation. Ultimately it will be the middle class and the poor the carries the burden of high taxation.
What he said.
Give $1,000 to each consumer who ise using a scarce commodity so it will be more affordable, and fund it by taxing the supplier of that scarce commodity.
Brilliant! We'll use even more! And the price will go up even more! And people want to vote for this guy?
Since xom makes 72% of it's revenues outside the US ,how do we figure the windfall?
On Aug 05 03:32 PM old driller wrote:
> I cannot believe the public is so naive to accept a tax on a commodity.
> Why don't we tax the farmer for wheat, corn, soy beans. We send them
> money!!!!!!!!
On Aug 05 05:17 PM pachanguero wrote:
> rck, is another example of people who just repeat what the "ONE"
> tells them.
> jack
Have you lost your minds? Do you think another 4 years of Republican leadership is good for this country? If you do, argue that. Stop with the sly bullshit.
Or some will start commenting on "Angry Mr Magoo".
Let's see now. America votes and people are thinking, "Should I vote for The Anointed One or Angry Mr Magoo?"
Hope you get my point. Let's get out of the gutter and seriously honor the choice we have to make this November.
It's called good citizenship.
Regards and I mean no disrespect to Sen McCain or Sen Obama.
Based on Obama's platform, the question if -- at the beginning of what could be a protracted global recession -- a heavy-handed tax and confiscation policy (let's call the "windfall redistribution" by its proper name) is commendable seems easy to answer: History, for those who usually profess to be eager to "learn" from it, argues that it is not.
If a candidate campaigning on a platform of unilateral appeasement is the man to see America through an ongoing war on terror, a potential confrontation w/ Iran, an increasingly militant rivalry with China, and a Russian prime minister who just advocated that Russia needs to be "back in Cuba" is quite another matter. Obama has posed not just as anti-War but anti-military.
(Ironically, military spending has historically been the ultimate stimulus package. Just asks Messrs. Roosevelt and Reagan. Then why gripe about the $10 billion a month going into the Iraq/Afghanistan war and only piddle around with a $1,000 a year redistribution check?)
Global competition has increased not just from China and India, but from Europe: Even retro-socialist Germany and France have revamped their tax systems and lowered business taxes to BELOW the U.S. rate. (That under the Bush administration.) How attractive do you think this makes the United States as a magnet for new business. Or, vice versa, how many years can U.S. corporations afford to be headquartered (and taxable) in the U.S. -- if Dubai, Hong Kong, maybe soon Mumbai offer a better deal that pays for itself in tax savings in a quarter?
Think Halliburton is the only company that can move its taxable revenues from the U.S. jurisdiction?
I am no big fan of McCain, but clearly a market-based economy (as much as this is possible in this country) is preferable to top-down meddling from someone who apparently has no clue regarding his own finances.
And of course, in a media-created atmosphere of complete irrational, uncritical adulation of one particular candidate -- as inexperienced and isolated from real-world experience as this one -- , the ironic use of "Anointed One" is not only permissable. But right on the money.
If I say so myself.
I see. So, it's completely fair, funny, and just common sense to defame, denigrate, insult, and generally laugh publicly at George Bush, a President elected twice, who has never whined about the treatment he's received but rather has demonstarted leadership all the way through. But to say anything negative about Barrak Hussein Obama, his positions on issues, what he says about himself, his mentors, his friends, and his country is off limits? That is a very good definition of one who has a developing case of messiah complex. Chm Mao, Der Furher, Stalin, they all had that going for them too. If The One is going to rule over us in January, hadn't we better accustom ourselves to using the correct terminology about His Highness Barak The First?
So? Europeans are used to paying high taxes. They've been paying high taxes since being conquered by Roman legions. Sorry dude. While I do very much enjoy vacationing in Europe, I have no envy when it comes to their politics or economic engines.
Even if such a measure became law, it would have to be upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Court's makeup is very different from the one of Jimmy Carter's day, who was the last president to impose such a tax. (It was a miserable failure, incidentally.)
This is not to say that President Obama wouldn't increase taxes. He is already on record proposing HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN NEW TAXES, and a minority of Senators can't kill all of them.
My own opinion is this is the LAST THING WE NEED TO DO right now, given the fragile state of our nation's economy. So, while Sen. Obama isn't like Hugo Chavez yet, he's not in office yet, either. Give him time, he's working on it!
PK: first, you give the Annointed One much more respect than I will ever give him. And as someone pointed out earlier, why aren't people in an uproar over the lack of respect shown the current sitting president? Naming a sewage plant after him...poking fun at all times...
Second, the term "Annointed One" or "The One" or "The Chosen One" relates to the way O is being treated by the press and his mind-numbed followers. The press won't report anything bad and are generally giving him rock star/movie star treatment. Its as if they have deemed him president already. And just ask an "Annointed One" follower to name 3 things that he has ever done that has helped America. All you will get will be tear downs of GW or attacks of McCain. But you will never, ever get anything that he has done. Then ask what he has promised he will do when elected. Not "Fix healthcare" or "fix energy" but what are his plans. And if you are lucky enough to hear a plan, the plan should scare the shoots out of you. But don't worry, you probably won't get a plan because these fools don't know about the plans. They just know that he is "hope" and "change" and that's why we vote for him. Hence, "The Annointed One" title. If the shoe fits....
BTW, Hitler promised "hope" and "change" too! Ask the Germans how that worked out for them!! "hope" and "change" without any detail can backfire~~
So what's in a name? Whether you call him Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez or even Chamberlain, it's all the same thing. In truth, I don't particularly care for either of the candidates, but one would be CLEARLY worse than the other.
Even if it does happen, there will be enough R Senators and the Supremes to backstop us from the worst of it, at least for awhile. And the country will have grown tired of him by then.
My suggestion: Get rid of this two-party system. Our fore-fathers warned us of the evils of a two-party system. Stop voting for the "best of two evils" and actually vote for one of the 20 candidates out there that ACTUALLY represent you. That is what democracy is about. If you're tired of gas prices, take the bus. You will save the money that Obama is promising you if you take the bus instead of drive everywhere. (No gas, No car maintainence, No car insurance, No car registration). If you don't want to take the bus, CARPOOL. Every day, I see every car on the highway with 1 person in it, sitting in traffic, with the air conditioner on. And you wonder why you spend so much on gas.
Aug 06 12:52 PM
T. Boone for President.
Even tho he's half right by wanting to replace NG electrical power generation with WIND POWER and half wrong by wanting to burn NG in vehicles instead of biofuels, he understands the real problems; the real causes; and addresses the real actions that change the causes of the problems.
His head is where the sun shines and wind blows, as contrasted to ALL THE LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON.
Exxon does still generate more revenue selling oil than Iraq; we continue to help Iraq with our tax bucks; let Exxon help them directly, and bypass my pocket.
Boone is NOT, repeat NOT, advocating the use of CNG as a primary transportation fuel. Rather, he is investing in LNG for use as a replacement for diesel fuel in trucks. This is a good thing, too!
above-ground biofuels is the ultimate answer; be they trains, trucks, cars,...
ALL WITH SOLID STATE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY DEVICES CALLED POWERCHIPS AND ELECTRIC CHORUSMOTORS.
AND FIRST, ELECTRIFY THE RAILS AND INTERSTATES. THEN GET MORE PORTABLE WITH BIOFUEL DIRECT HYBRIDS.
NOW, THERE IS MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU DESERVE.
Aug 06 03:00 PMEgan - my guess is that T boone has given this much thought before he placed his bets with his own money. Now if he's a better fund raiser and politician than those in DC, so be it; it appears he's going to be more effective.
I fully understand he (bOONE) is a righ greedy texas oilman; but he has correctly nailed the causes of the problems AND is doing somethingn about it. And I agree with his actions (except for the burning of NG in cars, [or whatever, including power generation plants); I'd like it to be biofuels; but, he's more effective than me. What I would like for him to do is incorporatae waste heat recovery devices that convert directly to electricity and make all of the energy in his fuel useful. Then we can convert to biofuels.
My proof: what have we done to really stop burning our (and others) hydrocarbons since the 1973 embargo and 1979 nat gas shortages??
Who's been in control of that??
So, what's going to make it change???
Come on Rome!
Huh? they're making out like bandits, but somehow won't drill to make even more? Meet the illogic of today's Democrats. Oil companies aren't drilling everywhere they can because there's little chance of finding economically viable oil and gas in some places. There are dozens of E&P companies and they are drilling whenever and wherever they have a reasonable chance of finding profitable reserves.