Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
His tepid new pro drilling offshore stance, only slightly cooler than McCain's, isn't some heartfelt conversion or a recognition of the economic necessities.

It's The Polls, Stupid!

Obama has some real basic problems keeping his high excitement, glitzy campaign going until the ballots are cast. I really doubt he'll make it, considering the structural weakness in that his support is so concentrated among those most likely to vote Democratic, and least likely to vote at all, and in that a lot of the nonaligned voters aren't yet engaged and just parroting back the news media's fascination with Obama. That's fading fast and he's getting desperate.


Wednesday, August 6, 2008 Washington Times
Growing doubts weaken Obama, polls show
S.A. Miller and Stephen Dinan

Growing doubts among white working-class and independent voters blunted the momentum of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential run in recent days, leaving him in a tight contest with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain, pollsters say.

"His bubble hasn't burst, but it's leaking a little bit," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "It is not massive. It is incremental, but we've seen it across the board in all of these states, that [Mr. McCain] is doing better among white voters, especially white voters without college educations."

Mr. Obama, Illinois Democrat, led by double digits earlier this summer but now barely edges out the Arizona Republican in most national polls. A Gallup daily tracking poll released Tuesday showed Mr. Obama with a four-point advantage but, for the first time since June, losing the battle for independents 43 percent to 40 percent.

"Obama moved from a fascinating phenomena to a guy who could become president and now he has got to answer the question of is he ready to be president," said John Zogby, president of the polling firm Zogby International, whose latest poll this week gave Mr. McCain a one-percentage-point lead.

Mr. Zogby said racial prejudice is clearly behind some of the defections from Mr. Obama and said Mr. McCain has made gains among conservatives, women and young voters, and now leads among Catholics - a group Mr. Obama struggled to win over in a grueling primary battle against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

After months of glowing press coverage and the chance to define himself, Mr. Obama has faced tougher times in the past few weeks. The McCain campaign has run an ad comparing the Democrat to lightweight celebrities, and pollsters said Mr. McCain has benefited from his proposal to expand offshore oil drilling.

Deepening Mr. Obama's woes, the appetite for negative information appears to be large. The Associated Press reported that three new anti-Obama books were among the top 20 best-sellers on Amazon.com's list on Tuesday, despite little critical attention or mainstream media coverage.

Seeking to counter some of the loss of support, the Obama campaign announced that it would deploy Mrs. Clinton to Nevada and Florida later this month. She won both Nevada's caucuses and Florida's primary.

The Obama campaign said the candidate would continue to build support throughout the electorate with plans to address high gas prices and the economic crunch, issues that have burst to the fore the election.

"Senator Obama is going to keep talking about his plan to give middle-class families a $1,000 rebate funded by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, adding that Mr. McCain took $2 million in contributions from the oil industry and proposes lower corporate tax rates that would benefit big oil companies.

The McCain camp counters that the polls are moving because voters have questions about Mr. Obama's "inexperience" and "failed judgment pocketbook issues."

"John McCain has a record of making reform and fighting Washington's conventional wisdom, which Barack Obama absolutely does not," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bonds.

Not all the polls show a dead-even race.

The AP/Ipsos poll released Tuesday gave Mr. Obama a 47 percent to 41 percent lead, with the margin coming from women, minorities and young voters.

Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, said independent voters are fickle by nature and switch allegiances often during a campaign, but he said Mr. Obama has retained a consistent three-point lead overall throughout the summer and likely will remain that way until the party conventions.

"It looks like it always comes back to the same pattern," Mr. Newport said. "I don't say he has lost any support. He has been steady all summer."

Mr. Zogby disagreed.

In addition to drops in support from Catholics, he noted a dip in support among young voters for Mr. Obama, who throughout the primaries attracted throngs of college-age and other young first-time voters.

"Maybe some young voters started to say, 'Hey, I thought he was different?'" Mr. Zogby said.

The same forces were at work in battleground states, said Mr. Brown, whose organization has been surveying voters in those states.

In Minnesota, Mr. McCain jumped to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead among independents, after Mr. Obama led in June by 21 points - 54 percent to 33 percent - Mr. McCain also jumped to a lead among independent voters in both Ohio and Florida, and Mr. Obama lost support among independents in Michigan and Colorado.

While Democrats usually win between 85 percent and 90 percent of black voters, Mr. Brown said Mr. Obama this year can expect to win 95 percent. That means Mr. McCain will need to boost his margins among white voters and win as many Hispanic voters as possible.

Given Mr. Obama's expected lead among younger voters, that makes the battleground clear: "non-young, non-black voters," Mr. Brown said.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,990 Posts
I don't think his switching is a sign of desperation. Given the large number of people who support drilling it is actually wise for him to switch, and far enough away from November so that people won't remember he "flip-flopped".

With gasonline at $4 a gallon, it's a no-brainer to support drilling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
BRussell, you have fallen prey to Big Oil's scheme. We do not need to open any new areas to oil drilling.

Of all the leases currently in the gulf off of Texas and Louisianna, only a fraction are being drilled. Why not finish with those?

The Alaskan Pipe Line which was built for the Oil Companies by us taxpayers to move Oil across Alaska. What happened to the idea that we the US was going to benefit from this? The oil instead was being shipped to Asia where the oil companies made bigger profits.

Also the Alaskan Pipeline has only operated at 25% capacity since opened....why? Controlled shortages.

Now they have just opened drill leases off the coast of Florida for the first time. Why, to lower our dependency on foreign oil? Then explain why that out of the four companies that bought these new leases....two are FOREIGN COMPANIES?

Why don't we make Exxon with their record profits, build more refineries and make it law that all oil pumped from US soil should be refined in the US and sold only in the US and not foreign markets. THAT would eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and it would eliminate the high cost of gas.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
5,829 Posts
OldManKiller Said:

"The Alaskan Pipe Line which was built for the Oil Companies by us taxpayers to move Oil across Alaska. What happened to the idea that we the US was going to benefit from this? The oil instead was being shipped to Asia where the oil companies made bigger profits."

Sorry Charlie

Cost to build: $8 billion in 1977, largest privately funded construction project at that time The oil companies with exploration rights grouped together as the Alyeska consortium to create a company to design, build, and then operate the pipeline.

Computers make these things easy to check.

I always thought that folks in business were suppose to make a profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Thanks for the clarification. But that still doesn't prove a NEED for more drilling does it? And I am all for a company making a FAIR profit, but the absolute obcene profits they are making could be used to address the problem couldn't it? Face it, the oil companies have the ability to end this fuel crisis but choose not to to save their profits. That is their right. But don't expect me to give up public lands to support those gross profits for little to no benefit to the US citizens.

Instead of laws giving away our resources, lets make laws protecting these resources for the excusive use of US Citizens.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,990 Posts
BRussell, you have fallen prey to Big Oil's scheme. We do not need to open any new areas to oil drilling.

Of all the leases currently in the gulf off of Texas and Louisianna, only a fraction are being drilled. Why not finish with those?

The Alaskan Pipe Line which was built for the Oil Companies by us taxpayers to move Oil across Alaska. What happened to the idea that we the US was going to benefit from this? The oil instead was being shipped to Asia where the oil companies made bigger profits.

Also the Alaskan Pipeline has only operated at 25% capacity since opened....why? Controlled shortages.

Now they have just opened drill leases off the coast of Florida for the first time. Why, to lower our dependency on foreign oil? Then explain why that out of the four companies that bought these new leases....two are FOREIGN COMPANIES?

Why don't we make Exxon with their record profits, build more refineries and make it law that all oil pumped from US soil should be refined in the US and sold only in the US and not foreign markets. THAT would eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and it would eliminate the high cost of gas.
Nice try. In New Mexico, the oil companies are challenged with every attempt to drill by the enviromentalists. So they may have leases, but they can't drill them.

I agree with the oil being pumped here must be sold here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,990 Posts
Thanks for the clarification. But that still doesn't prove a NEED for more drilling does it? And I am all for a company making a FAIR profit, but the absolute obcene profits they are making could be used to address the problem couldn't it? Face it, the oil companies have the ability to end this fuel crisis but choose not to to save their profits. That is their right. But don't expect me to give up public lands to support those gross profits for little to no benefit to the US citizens.

Instead of laws giving away our resources, lets make laws protecting these resources for the excusive use of US Citizens.

Obscene? You're kidding, right? Notice that everyone is happy with Microsoft making a larger profit per dollar than the oil companies, and their field isn't as capital intensive as the oil companies.

Something tells me you failed to buy oil stocks when they were cheap.

Gross profits? What a joke.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,990 Posts
Why don't we make Exxon with their record profits, build more refineries and make it law that all oil pumped from US soil should be refined in the US and sold only in the US and not foreign markets. THAT would eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and it would eliminate the high cost of gas.

What a laugh you are! I work in Los Angeles, most of my life was spent living there. Every time standard oil or some other company tried to open a refinery the enviromentalists put a stop to that! Just like they did nuclear power in california.

Of course that side of the argument is missing from your "I'm pissed I dont' make as much as Exxon-mobile do".

By the way, are you half-way familiar with just how much in taxes Exxon pays?
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
5,829 Posts
Is 10% profit obscene? The oil companies turn a lot of dollars but make a lower than average profit. Don't forget the 10% pays Federal income tax at the corp rate. I for one want them to make money. Do you know what a new well in the gulf costs? What will it cost to establish a new oil field off the cost of Carolina. I certainly don't know but it will be billions. Who owns the oil companies? I do for one. I along with millions of others own shares in oil companies tired up in our 401s and IRAs. You damn right I want a healthy oil industry. I also want...no demand affordable energy. The gooberment sure can't get it for me. This whole energy mess we're in right now is a problem created by gooberment and no one else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Obscene? You're kidding, right? Notice that everyone is happy with Microsoft making a larger profit per dollar than the oil companies, and their field isn't as capital intensive as the oil companies.

Something tells me you failed to buy oil stocks when they were cheap.

Gross profits? What a joke.
The difference is we are not dependent on Microsoft as we are oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
The difference is we are not dependent on Microsoft as we are oil.
I would not make that bet Bobby.

If The US Gov't sued Microsoft to the point where it would leave the country and discontinue the servicing of it's products you would discover all of the inconveniences and issues created by the removal of a tool or technology that we have grown to depend on.

Sure there will be replacements, but they will be lesser quality for a higher price.

Most of the good innovative competitors have already been driven out of business some time ago.

911 Dispatch would fail.
Airports would fail.
Anything involving city, state, or federal government will fail.

I live in rural northern Michigan and I would still be affected.

Farms are now operated by computers to some degree as are shipping hubs and dispatch centers.

Have you ever tried to place a parts order with Numrich when their computers are down?




The real issue is that both oil crisis and computer crisis would be tough but survivable for anyone willing to think about their situation and follow thought with action.

Too many Americans are terminal whiners.

Too many are waiting for the gov't to find a solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,951 Posts
Exxon made 8% on its investments. More than inline with other large corporations, and far less than many of the businesses owned by board members. Large corporation with large investments generally leads to large dollar profits. Exxon is a huge corporation! I don't know about anyone else here, but I expect at least 8% on my stock investments (on average) each year for the risk I take with the investments. That is why banks and bonds generally pay less - much lower risk inherent in the investment.

As already stated by a board member - most of the leases held by Oil Companies are in un-productive areas. Many of those held that show promise are immediately prevented from being developed by the environmental movement. For instance there is a proven large natural gas deposit in the Gulf of Mexico, on leased land, that Congress has prevented from development.

If you were a corporation - why would you spend millions of dollars to do exploration and test drilling - only to have the devopment of those assets stoped by the environmentalist and Congress. Can you imagine buying property, clearing a lot, laying waterlines, laying sewer lines, laying power lines, getting a building permit - only to be told that you can't build on it, while pouring the foundation, because the environmentalist say it would be bad for the environment????? Would kinda discourage home building would'nt it?

As for the oil companies making profits off of the people - they dont set the prices. They are set on the commodity exchange. Done by speculators working for investment corporations. The money coming from mutual funds in our 401Ks and IRAs (and those overseas - it is one big investment market now). Not a good thing for a politician, even a left wing liberal like Obama, to state that the stock market is at fault for the high prices. Might upset some people relying on these investment for retirement. Much easier to blame the big evil corporation whose name is above the gas pump.

Don't forget the devalued US Dollar. Overseas trade debt decreases it. Let see I think the last info I heard was that $700 billion dollars goes overseas a year just to pay for oil. This devalues the dollar, and thus increases the cost of oil still further. Would'nt finding oil/gas here decrease the amount of debt, create jobs here, and increase the value of the dollar?

What I want to know (please you Obama supporters step-up) is how taxing oil companies would lower gas prices. Lets see; economic theory says that when cost/expenses rise you have to increase the price of the product or service you sell. All this will do is to, in fact, place a tax on people, but the liberals can lie and say its a tax on the evil oil corporations. Can't believe that people buy this lie.

Why have gas/oil prices declined lately. Decreased demand and the almost certainty of increased drilling (even the Democrats are realizing this - see Obamas flip-flop(small and uncommited as it is)). The Democrats are starting to realize how much this subject will cost them if they continue the lies the far left wing wishes them to push. If you were a commodity broker you might be seeing the future and thinking - its time to sell while the prices are high.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,990 Posts
The difference is we are not dependent on Microsoft as we are oil.

I know, and you'd tax them so hard that they'd lack the finanaces to explore for new fields.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
OK so let me see if I understand this.

a)It's not the Oil Companies fault that the current situation is causing them to suffer record profits.

b)The US government is ineffective, wether they be Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Consevative or even Gore himself at finding a true and effective solution.

c)The speculators on Wall Street are helping to keep the price up, to the benfit of everyone's 401k

d) the Enviromentalists are preventing the progress needed to search for, drill for and refine oil in the US causing us to remain dependent on foreign oil.

Have I got it straight now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,951 Posts
Most of it! The question you should be asking yourself is what unreasonable profits are? If you make an $8 profit or an $800,000 profit - which is unreasonable?

You should'nt even be able to think/comment with out knowing the investment ammount. Suppose you invested $1 to get the $8. Or $10 million to get the $800,000. Which do you consider unreasonable?

Also remember that the Oil Companies are paying the $140-$150 per barrel of oil. They dont buy the oil at $30 and then sell it to us for $150.

So lets see - Exxon buys oil for $400 billion dollars last year, ships it here (with the inherent risk and costs involved), then turns it into gas and other petroleum products. Plant depreciation, staffing (huge), insurence, EPA concercerns, etc, etc.

So you tell me what is the acceptible return on a $400 billion dollar investment. 2%, 4%, 8%, 10%, 20%? What would you want if loaned your money to a stranger in interest?


A better line of thought would be to increase competition; which would lead to better productivity, and thus to lower prices for the consumers. Think sorta - more phone companies or more cable TV companies. But that requires more refineries and more sources of oil. Sorta out of the question considering the Democratic line. So in a way - yes the Democrats are at fault (along with some Republicans).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
No Tom, what I am getting out of all this is the simple solution would be to kill off the enviromentalists or at least ship them off to Antartica for an all expense paid research mission into the mating habits of the Emperor Penguin for a season. By the time they get back we could have all the new wells and refineries started. Sorry, just sarcasm in face of frustration of an insurmountable problem.

Maybe Exxon is only making a "reasonable" profit on their investment. But when it is costing me over $50.00 bucks a week to fill my tank used to cost $20.00, I get a bit irritated at the term "Record Profits".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,951 Posts
Trust me - I'm pissed off too! Just got to think about who you should really be pissed off at. We need solutions - not a lot of retoric and scapegoats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Most of it! The question you should be asking yourself is what unreasonable profits are? If you make an $8 profit or an $800,000 profit - which is unreasonable?

You shouldn't even be able to comment with out knowing the investment amount. Suppose you invested $1 to get the $8. Or $10 million to get the $800,000. Which do you consider unreasonable?

Also remember that the Oil Companies are paying the $140-$150 per barrel of oil. They don't buy the oil at $30 and then sell it to us for $150.

So lets see - Exxon buys oil for $400 billion dollars last year, ships it here (with the inherent risk and costs involved), then turns it into gas and other petroleum products. Plant depreciation, staffing (huge), insurance, EPA concerns, etc, etc.

So you tell me what is the acceptable return on a $400 billion dollar investment. 2%, 4%, 8%, 10%, 20%? What would you want if loaned your money to a stranger in interest?


A better line of thought would be to increase competition; which would lead to better productivity, and thus to lower prices for the consumers. Think sorta - more phone companies or more cable TV companies. But that requires more refineries and more sources of oil. Sorta out of the question considering the Democratic line. So in a way - yes the Democrats are at fault (along with some Republicans).
Good analogy Tom, but you forgot to make it understandable to a firearm collector.

Suppose you went to an auction and lucked into a very valuable firearm that you do not necessarily collect, but you know it would enhance your collection.

Suppose you paid $90 dollars for it.

You get it home, discover it is something special and rare and start looking at the resale value.

You discover that market value of your firearm is $3,500.

Are you going to sell it for $100?

Can you find any reason why it would be unethical to try to get as much as that firearm is valued for?

Now suppose you are the buyer.

You have been informed that the person selling you this firearm got it for $90.

Are you going to demand that he sell it to you for $100 because he is making too much profit?

Would you hold yourself to the same standard once the item is in your possession?

How far down the road to socialism have you already personally traveled?
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top