Oil Price Fixing?

[Black_Magic]

Oil Price-Fixing? Of Course There's Oil Price-Fixing!

There is so much propaganda, faith-based economic theorizing and simple ignorance and naiveté surrounding the question of soaring gasoline and oil prices in this country!

For heaven’s sake, of course there is collusion, monopolistic behavior and price fixing in the oil industry.

Start with the OPEC, that gang of producers, largely in the thrall of the major oil companies, which sets production quotas for most of the major oil producing nations.

Then move to the large companies. There used to be seven. Now there are far fewer mega companies, thanks to mergers like Exxon/Mobil and BP/Amoco.

But even those few companies aren’t really functioning as independent, competitive enterprises. Because refineries, offshore drilling platforms and pipelines are gigantic multi-billion-dollar capital projects--a typical refinery can cost upwards of $5 billion to construct--most are joint projects involving several oil companies, while others lease the use of them. In such a situation, all those elements of a business which are normally closely-held trade secrets important to maintaining competitive advantage--inventories, crude reserves, pricing, production rates, relative mix of heating oil, low and high-octane gasoline, etc.--are common knowledge.

It’s not like a typical business--say automobiles or television sets--where companies keep those kinds of numbers secret or, if they collude, have to do it by meeting in secret and agreeing on higher prices. The executives of the oil industry never have to get together, whether over a game of golf or in a back office. They know all about each other's operations without ever talking. Collusion, not competition, is a way of life in this industry.

There is simply no way to use a competitive model to explain what happened to gasoline prices after the Katrina storm hit New Orleans. At best, 10 percent of production was shut down, according to reports. That’s 10 percent of 1/4 of U.S. demand--a tiny amount. Even if it were 10 percent of total demand because of reduced import ability at the Louisiana port, we're talking about 10 percent, while gas prices rose 25-35 percent and even more in some areas. Not often mentioned in the same articles on this phenomenon was the fact that the world price of oil actually fell by almost 10 percent over the same period.

When the world oil price rises, I notice, as I'm sure most readers also notice, that the price at the pump is up the next day--sometimes the same day that a report comes out. Yet oil from places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait takes month to go from the wellhead to retail gas stations in the U.S. Even oil from Venezuela takes weeks to become gas at the station in the U.S. What other product do you know of where the retail price in stores jumps immediately when the price of raw materials that goes into it goes up? Does bread go up at the store the day that wheat prices kick up on the Chicago Merc? Does candy in the story go up when the price of sugar rises on the Comex? Of course not! Just gasoline and home heating oil. So if more expensive crude oil doesn't actually physically get to the pump for months, and the price at the pump goes up immediately, who’s pocketing that money in the meantime? Hint: It's not your local gas station owner. Just check out the stock prices of the oil companies, and you’ll have the correct answer.

In a competitive model, the kind Milton Friedman likes to celebrate, companies like Sunoco and Exxon would keep their retail prices as low as possible until costs forced them to raise prices--something that simply doesn’t happen. Indeed, it's a one-way arrangement. When the per barrel price of crude falls, the price at the pump hangs at its high level, sometimes for weeks, but if crude goes up, so does the pump price. Consumers can't shop for bargains because all gas stations behave the same way. For the most part, though, it's not the stations that are doing this--many of them aren't even independent businesses, but are owned by the major companies--but rather the oil companies themselves. The money that results from this collusive, monopolistic behavior, in other words, is accruing to the oil companies and their stockholders.

The beauty of this arrangement, from the oil industry’s perspective, is that nobody can be fined or jailed for it. Under U.S. anti-trust law, it's not illegal to have collusive results. The government would have to prove collusive behavior, and as long as the oil executives don't actually sit in a room or a teleconference, and expressly conspire to collude on raising prices or cutting production, it simply cannot be done.

If Congress and the White House were serious about combating price rigging and coordinated production slowdowns, they would be changing the anti-trust laws so that the objective existence of anti-competitive pricing and production alone would be illegal, not just deliberate conspiring to fix prices. A simple step would be just to make all the competitive information regarding production and pricing of oil and oil products, all the way from wellhead to pump, public. After all, if the oil companies all know everything about each other's internal pricing and production, there’s no justification for keeping that information from the public. Instead we have the opposite situation of course: secret meetings by our oil-industry-subsidized vice president and executives of the oil industry, where real collusive decisions were made.

Oil and energy are too crucial to the economy and to people's daily lives to allow them to remain the private domain of oil company executives and the oilmen--Bush and Cheney to name two--who run this blood-and-oil administration.

[STANG RED]

Good cut and paste job there BM. But you should have shown the source. Looks like a NY Times article to me. But then you'd know it would lose all credibility if you clued us in on that little tid bit of info.

[Phil C]

"This is what I have been saying all along," said the Sinton GodFather while on his way to the snack bar for a cup of coffee.

[Black_Magic]

Consider that the U.S. has twice invested blood and treasure to protect the economic interests of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia without ever winning a promise that they would stop picking the pockets of American businesses and consumers.

Can anyone explain why the U.S. government gave the green light for OPEC member Venezuela to buy its way into the American downstream market with its purchase of Citgo? Or why the Federal Reserve saw nothing wrong with allowing a Saudi prince to use his ill-gotten oil gains to buy a big chunk of Citicorp?

It doesn't have to be this way. The Senate Judiciary Committee has twice reported out legislation by Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) that would extend the reach of antitrust laws to government-owned commercial activities. But thanks to the "hold" put on the bill by oil-state senators, the full Senate will never get to consider it.

Why? Because the business model on which big oil companies operate is built around tight supply and monopoly prices. These companies now get most of their record-breaking profits from "upstream" operations -- drilling for oil and selling it at inflated OPEC prices. At the same time, they have systematically retreated from refining and marketing in submarkets that are too competitive, contributing to the recent shortages in gasoline and heating oil. Exploration and drilling budgets, meanwhile, have declined as companies refuse to invest in new projects that won't work if crude prices fall below $20 a barrel. Less drilling today, less supply tomorrow.

There is an alternative to this strategy of kowtowing to OPEC.

For starters, our European friends could let OPEC ministers know that they are no longer welcome in Vienna if their purpose is price fixing. And with Congress's approval, the Justice Department could open a criminal investigation not only of OPEC, but also of private companies that aid and abet its price fixing. Oil-consuming nations could form an oil-buying cartel to build up oil reserves when prices are low and noisily dump them on markets when prices get too high. Countries that prevent private investment in their oil industries could be barred from making similar investments here.

Is there are risk to such a strategy? Sure. But with $130-a-barrel oil, it may be a risk worth taking.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Good cut and paste job there BM. But you should have shown the source. Looks like a NY Times article to me. But then you'd know it would lose all credibility if you clued us in on that little tid bit of info. yeah but their is hints of truth to it. there are globally coordinated elite that can manipulate prices. Globalization and technology have given many of these top tiers a inexhaustable amount of control. Lots of books on it as well as a great editorial book ELITE DEVIANCE. conspiracy theories are idiotic, the truth is much more shocking and usually transparent.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
What other product do you know of where the retail price in stores jumps immediately when the price of raw materials that goes into it goes up?
Jewelry. All other commodities.

Go look in your local jewelry store at the wall of gold. Was that that thick 14k gold bracelet $1000 three years ago? Heck, was it $1000 three months ago? It may have been on the wall for the last year and a half, but it's not going to be priced like it was.

When the gas stations raise prices, they're not raising them because it was the cost of the gas they purchased, but because it's the cost to replace it. The individual gas stations don't make much profit at all in gas sales. The small stations' profits can be wiped out in a day by one (that's right ONE) drive-off. $40-$50 a day in profits doesn't seem like a lot, does it?

No, they actually get all their money from the $5 bread and $1.50 172-oz. Super Gulps that cost them $.03 to make. Basically, convenience stores don't make money off gas, so it's not their fault when they raise gas prices. They don't have much of a choice if they want to keep selling the stuff. If they don't raise prices, they won't be able to afford the next fill of gas. Because they're paying the oil company's future prices, when the price of gas jumps by $.25, they'd better have the extra $3k-$5k (average underground tank for a convenience store is anywhere from 10k-20k gallons) it's going to cost to fill up their tanks the next go-round.

They operate under the same basic concept as a movie theater or entertainment park. Ticket sales produce little to no profit. They're forced to make their money on the extras... the food and drinks.

[sotxrat]

I received this email yesterday from a friend and do not have the source it actually came from, but I do remember this taking place.
I am not saying this is the only reason but it is food for thought.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since these testimonies are usually under oath, this would be good for non oil family and friends to read. Since the media hammers us for being greedy, see who really prevents the American people from enjoying cheaper oil.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Subject: Evil Oil Companies?? OR misguided Democratic socialist policies.


Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:

I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.

To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.

Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America 's 22 billion barrels of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado .

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Jewelry. All other commodities.

When the gas stations raise prices, they're not raising them because it was the cost of the gas they purchased, but because it's the cost to replace it. The individual gas stations don't make much profit at all in gas sales. The small stations' profits can be wiped out in a day by one (that's right ONE) drive-off. $40-$50 a day in profits doesn't seem like a lot, does it?

1st We are talking about the Oil companies Not the station owners. Station owners have little say about the price they can sell it at except for about 8 cents per gallon( thier profit margin)
The Price of Gas does not go down the next day oil drops. It takes Days for that to happen. the price goes up the very next day if Crude goes up though. its not a two way street. Its one way and that one way is always into the pocket book of the Oil company.

[BreckTxLonghorn]

Source: http://www.stwr.net/content/view/268/37/

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
1st We are talking about the Oil companies Not the station owners. Station owners have little say about the price they can sell it at except for about 8 cents per gallon( thier profit margin)
The Price of Gas does not go down the next day oil drops. It takes Days for that to happen. the price goes up the very next day if Crude goes up though. its not a two way street. Its one way and that one way is always into the pocket book of the Oil company.
Yup.

Consider this: crude oil prices dipped into the high-teens back in the late-90's.

link (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm)

Today, oil is at $131/barrel. Average price of gas nationwide (according to gasbuddy.com) is about $3.95/gallon. That's a ratio of about 33.2:1.

We'll say they were at $18 for argument's sake. At $18/barrel, gas averaged about $.89/gallon nationwide. That's a ratio of 20.2:1. What that tells us is that gas companies are charging us a much higher rate to refine gas.

Now whether that's because of higher costs (environmental issues), the constant jump in prices, or anything else, I couldn't tell you. But I do know that I'm looking at a 60% jump in the ratio and $4 a gallon at the pump.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
1st We are talking about the Oil companies Not the station owners. Station owners have little say about the price they can sell it at except for about 8 cents per gallon( thier profit margin)
The Price of Gas does not go down the next day oil drops. It takes Days for that to happen. the price goes up the very next day if Crude goes up though. its not a two way street. Its one way and that one way is always into the pocket book of the Oil company.

YOu can tell you never worked at a service station. The cost goes up when fuel is delivered in most cases. Since many stations have multple days supplies the price would be for what they purchased not what the price of crude is on any given day.
Secondly, the Refiners bid out wholesale prices which are given at the national level at commodities prices. It is a traded commodity just like crude and is priced accordingly.

[charlesrixey]

it's really not this difficult

allow the american companies to drill for the oil here in america, and 5-10 years from now our percentage of imported oil will decrease, and the price will as well. Do you think russians pay the world average for gasoline? no, because they have as much as they need and enough to make billions off of their european neighbors

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Yup.

Consider this: crude oil prices dipped into the high-teens back in the late-90's.

link (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm)

Today, oil is at $131/barrel. Average price of gas nationwide (according to gasbuddy.com) is about $3.95/gallon. That's a ratio of about 33.2:1.

We'll say they were at $18 for argument's sake. At $18/barrel, gas averaged about $.89/gallon nationwide. That's a ratio of 20.2:1. What that tells us is that gas companies are charging us a much higher rate to refine gas.

Now whether that's because of higher costs (environmental issues), the constant jump in prices, or anything else, I couldn't tell you. But I do know that I'm looking at a 60% jump in the ratio and $4 a gallon at the pump.
There is an easier method to look at here.
18 dollars a barrel vs .90 a gallon.
136 vs 4.00 a gallon.
18 goes into 136 7.6 times..
So crude has gone up 7.6 times.
Multiply .9 x's 7.6 and you would get a price of about 6.83 a gallon.
Seems to me we are doin pretty good here. Sounds like the profit margins have been cut somewhere to keep the ratio of costs down.

[Macarthur]

I believe there is something funny going on.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/05/354-oil-supply-vs-prices.html

If you will look at these numbers from the International Energy Agency, demand has only outstretched supply one qtr in the last several years. Simple supply and demand can not be the reason.

so what is?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I believe there is something funny going on.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/05/354-oil-supply-vs-prices.html

If you will look at these numbers from the International Energy Agency, demand has only outstretched supply one qtr in the last several years. Simple supply and demand can not be the reason.

so what is?

It is not the actual supply and emand, it is the speculation of supply and demand..again the speculators on the market have drove the cost up, but this will also create a bubble and when it pops, Oil's cost per barre;l will plummet

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
It is not the actual supply and emand, it is the speculation of supply and demand..again the speculators on the market have drove the cost up, but this will also create a bubble and when it pops, Oil's cost per barre;l will plummet

That is correct. We have a fundamentally fear driven flawed market. It will do the same thing that any other market does that is overvalued.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
There is an easier method to look at here.
18 dollars a barrel vs .90 a gallon.
136 vs 4.00 a gallon.
18 goes into 136 7.6 times..
So crude has gone up 7.6 times.
Multiply .9 x's 7.6 and you would get a price of about 6.83 a gallon.
Seems to me we are doin pretty good here. Sounds like the profit margins have been cut somewhere to keep the ratio of costs down.

If that is the case! Why are profits up? Shouldn't they be lower?:thinking:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
There is an easier method to look at here.
18 dollars a barrel vs .90 a gallon.
136 vs 4.00 a gallon.
18 goes into 136 7.6 times..
So crude has gone up 7.6 times.
Multiply .9 x's 7.6 and you would get a price of about 6.83 a gallon.
Seems to me we are doin pretty good here. Sounds like the profit margins have been cut somewhere to keep the ratio of costs down.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Don't you know by now that you're not supposed to drag logical thoughts into these types of discussions? What were you thinking?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by garciap77
If that is the case! Why are profits up? Shouldn't they be lower?:thinking:

Profits are up because the price of crude is up. It costs the oil companies about 20 dollars a barrel to break even. But the market is charging the price. So profits are in part because they have actually made the distribution and refining process more efficient which allows us a cheaper price vs cost. In any case, they make their money on crude. One small fact not known to many is that we export about 53 percent of our crude products back out of the states vis a via plastics, petrochemicals, etc. If we used all of the oil for fuel only we would be self sufficient. But we create products that only we can make and sell them the world over. It is also this demand which drives the prices.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
There is an easier method to look at here.
18 dollars a barrel vs .90 a gallon.
136 vs 4.00 a gallon.
18 goes into 136 7.6 times..
So crude has gone up 7.6 times.
Multiply .9 x's 7.6 and you would get a price of about 6.83 a gallon.
Seems to me we are doin pretty good here. Sounds like the profit margins have been cut somewhere to keep the ratio of costs down.

I like your method! But, how can they cut the profit margins and still make more profit! And why not charge $6.83 a gallon? If cude is at $136 a gallon and they are only charging $4.00 wouldn't the profit margin go down? :thinking: :thinking: :confused:

[X21AAAPlayer]

If you live close to a mexican gas station it might be worth going across the border according to the news last night. Diesel prices are about 2$ a gallon and gas is much, much cheaper than we pay over here, due to the little fact that the mexican government controls the prices, not the companies.... Thank you free trade:doh:

[garciap77]

I do not live close to Mexico, but I heard it take less than 30min to get across to Mexico and about 4 hours to get back across. So, the savings may not be as good waiting in line to get back across!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by X21AAAPlayer
If you live close to a mexican gas station it might be worth going across the border according to the news last night. Diesel prices are about 2$ a gallon and gas is much, much cheaper than we pay over here, due to the little fact that the mexican government controls the prices, not the companies.... Thank you free trade:doh:
Actually the mexican government along with many other governments subsidize gas prices. Another problem with supply and demand. If they would let the market work those countries would not use the fuel they do.

[Macarthur]

In a CNBC interview, when asked by Maria Bartiromo about how much of the blame for the recent oil price rise should be put on speculators, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "This is not about blame, this is about supply and demand," he said in an interview on CNBC television. "All the research we have done shows that speculators and investors have had very little impact on this." Traders and longer-term investors tend to take positions on both sides of oil market transactions, long and short, thus being essentially price receivers rather than price setters.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/334/dont-blame-speculators

I don't doubt that it's part, but I don't think that speculation can account for prices going up almost 4 fold in the last 5-7 years.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
In a CNBC interview, when asked by Maria Bartiromo about how much of the blame for the recent oil price rise should be put on speculators, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "This is not about blame, this is about supply and demand," he said in an interview on CNBC television. "All the research we have done shows that speculators and investors have had very little impact on this." Traders and longer-term investors tend to take positions on both sides of oil market transactions, long and short, thus being essentially price receivers rather than price setters.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/334/dont-blame-speculators

I don't doubt that it's part, but I don't think that speculation can account for prices going up almost 4 fold in the last 5-7 years.

What he is saying is that they trade on a technical format. What that does not explain is that they do not follow good news very often. In other words since supply is good and demand has not materialized yet the price is up, they are speculating that sometime in the future the demand will outrun supply. And position themselves accordingly. That is speculation.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
What he is saying is that they trade on a technical format. What that does not explain is that they do not follow good news very often. In other words since supply is good and demand has not materialized yet the price is up, they are speculating that sometime in the future the demand will outrun supply. And position themselves accordingly. That is speculation.

One piece being left out of the discussion here is that supply as measured by inventories has been declining. Emotion is at work, and when supplies "dwindle", the price goes up despite minor attempts to conserve and thus lessen demand. One huge factor is refining capacity. No matter how much crude we have, if we have no refined product there is a "shortage".

Now we are seeing inventories of refined products leveling off if not increasing, thus oil has declined by $8.00 per barrel in the last two days. Folks, that is emotion, not supply and demand. Historically, the greatest price increases occur annually around the two summer holidays of Memorial Day and Labor Day, or the start and finish of the summer driving season. Once we passed the hurdle of Memorial Day, demand decreased, inventories appear to be getting better, and prices will decline. Happens annually. Speculation, supply and demand, or emotion? You choose.
:thinking: :thinking:

[sotxrat]

as far as the price of gasoline in mexico, at the present time it is cheaper but if history repeats itself they will eventually have their prices around 10 cents a gallon cheaper than in the states, what is odd about this is that, not all, but a lot of the gasoline sold in mexico along the united states border is bought from the u.s. because mexico is in worse shape than we are when in comes to having enough refiniers and the government does subsidize almost everything in mexico

[Macarthur]

But if you go back and look at my original post, demand has only surpassed supply in one quarter in the last several years. So the argument that demand is outstretching supply is simply not true.

Now, one issue that I think is a factor is the declining value of the dollar.

However, there is not one issue that you can look at that would explain prices going up 4x since about 2001.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Macarthur
But if you go back and look at my original post, demand has only surpassed supply in one quarter in the last several years. So the argument that demand is outstretching supply is simply not true.



and that is why experts warn of a pop in the oil bubble, people are speculating on something that is not happening and eventually this will cause the market to correct itself and cause a drastic drop

couple of weeks ago a report was put out about where OIL costs would be in a year..The media latched onto the part where it said it COULD be at 200 per barrel, but what was not noticed was in the same report it said it was more likely to fall and could bottom back out at around 60 a barrel

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
and that is why experts warn of a pop in the oil bubble, people are speculating on something that is not happening and eventually this will cause the market to correct itself and cause a drastic drop

couple of weeks ago a report was put out about where OIL costs would be in a year..The media latched onto the part where it said it COULD be at 200 per barrel, but what was not noticed was in the same report it said it was more likely to fall and could bottom back out at around 60 a barrel

I hope you are right.

[Black_Magic]

ITS GREED FOLKS... GREED[B] That combined with the fact that it our current administration is filled with Oil guys who were helped to get in to office by Oil Billionares. Its just denial on anyones part who dont see it IMO. Why would they stop it when the guys that helped put them in office are loving the things the way they are? We have a monopoly situation that has started to ger out of hand. Proof that some things that go unregulated too long can hurt the country like we have now. Crack down on the companies, and OPEC. Like MacArthur said. Speculation and Supply and Demand dont explain or justify the Massive increase in Price in such a short time period.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
ITS GREED FOLKS... GREED[B] That combined with the fact that it our currend administration is filled with Oil guys who were helped to get in to office by Oil Billionares. Its just denial on anyones part who dont see it IMO. Why would they stop it when the guys that helped put them in office are loving the things the way they are? We have a monopoly situation that has started to ger out of hand. Proof that some things that go unregulated too long can hurt the country like we have now. Crack down on the companies, and OPEC. Like MacArthur said. Speculation and Supply and Demand dont explain or justify the Massive increase in Price in such a short time period.

You know everyone else have given reasons to their belief..You dont, you just spout..I asked you once before...give us PROOF of what your saying..Show HOW they have done this

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
ITS GREED FOLKS... GREED[B] That combined with the fact that it our current administration is filled with Oil guys who were helped to get in to office by Oil Billionares. Its just denial on anyones part who dont see it IMO. Why would they stop it when the guys that helped put them in office are loving the things the way they are? We have a monopoly situation that has started to ger out of hand. Proof that some things that go unregulated too long can hurt the country like we have now. Crack down on the companies, and OPEC. Like MacArthur said. Speculation and Supply and Demand dont explain or justify the Massive increase in Price in such a short time period.

That is why it won't last. Just like the 80's bust. Don't know how far it will fall but it will.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
You know everyone else have given reasons to their belief..You dont, you just spout..I asked you once before...give us PROOF of what your saying..Show HOW they have done this

TX he cannot. He has faith in his belief that does not allow facts to intrude. The funny thing is that he believes it. If there was a conspiracy of sorts the libs would be all over it. The papers too.
A chance to shoot down the guys in power and put them in jail.
The conservatives would not recover for years. Yet no one is charging these guys with anything because there is nothing.

[sotxrat]

i understand the reasons, of which there are many, that the cost of gasoline has risen however..........before i ask the following question, let me qualify myself just a little, i have an oilfield service company, took over reigns many years ago from my father who started it in 1963, we operate light duty and heavy duty vehicles all over texas and northern mexico.............now with that being said why is diesel more expensive that gasoline, i know where diesel comes from and i have heard the supply and demand theory, but i would just like some of the downlow wisdom on this one..........thanks and i will read and laugh and maybe learn as well.

[Black_Magic]

Here you go TXbroadcaster

Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a series of meetings with a group of energy industry representatives and lobbyists. From these meetings, the Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
For months, Vice President Cheney refused to release the names of participants, citing presidential privilege to conduct consultations in private. However, Congress's non-partisan investigative and oversight arm, the General Accounting Office (GAO), filed an unprecedented lawsuit to obtain the names of the industrialists who met with the Bush Administration to shape his National Energy Plan. Environmentalists filed suit as well. The names of the industry experts are finally, if slowly, being released, revealing that the administration had given environmental groups only three days to provide input in writing, while meeting in person with the energy lobby time after time.
One participant was grudgingly revealed by Cheney early on: Former Enron CEO and George W Bush's most generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay Cheney admitted that he and/or his staff met at least six times with Lay on energy policy issues. Congressmember Henry Waxman (D-CA) subsequently identified 17 different provisions of the Bush National Energy Plan bill that would have benefited Enron. At least one Executive Order on energy policy was virtually identical to draft proposals submitted by the American Petroleum Institute.

Sounds like a conection to me...
:thinking: :clap: :thinking: Why hide it? why the effort to hide it?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Are they being charged? Is this illegal? Does that directive actually support high prices and can you prove it? A connection does not mean illegal or conspiratorial. And if you could find it how hard were they hiding it?

[sahen]

Originally posted by sotxrat
i understand the reasons, of which there are many, that the cost of gasoline has risen however..........before i ask the following question, let me qualify myself just a little, i have an oilfield service company, took over reigns many years ago from my father who started it in 1963, we operate light duty and heavy duty vehicles all over texas and northern mexico.............now with that being said why is diesel more expensive that gasoline, i know where diesel comes from and i have heard the supply and demand theory, but i would just like some of the downlow wisdom on this one..........thanks and i will read and laugh and maybe learn as well.

this is my thoughts, i posted it yesterday but was shortly called wrong cause the oil company just wanted a few more bucks and naive...


I think it has something to do w/ the developing countries using more diesel than gasoline...semis and busses andall normally use diesel so the demand for diesel over the world is pretty high and they make less of it than gasoline...something like that is the explanation i heard, but yes it does seem weird...

a search and a follow up post resulted in this:


a quick google search shows im not all that wrong...

Historically, the average price of on-highway diesel fuel was usually lower than or close to the price of regular gasoline. In some cold winters demand for distillate heating oil pushed diesel fuel prices higher. Since September 2004, diesel prices have been higher than regular gasoline prices almost continuously for several reasons:

-High worldwide demand for diesel fuel and other distillate fuel oils, especially in Europe, China, India and the United States, and a tight global refining capacity available to meet demand.

-The transition to lower-sulfur diesel fuels in the United States is affecting diesel fuel production and distribution costs.

-The Federal excise tax on on-highway diesel fuel is 6 cents per gallon higher (at 24.4 cents/gallon) than the tax on gasoline.


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/diesel_faqs.asp

the oil companies arent sticking us anymore w/ diesel than w/ gas, it just cost more cause more demand and our government (boy they are convienant) taxing it and putting more restrictions on it...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Are they being charged? Is this illegal? Does that directive actually support high prices and can you prove it? A connection does not mean illegal or conspiratorial. And if you could find it how hard were they hiding it? Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. There is no Iron Clad Proof (YET!) but there is plenty of motive, circumstantial evidence that is extreemly suspisious, and Oil Profits though the roof! But go ahead and stick your head in the sand... its clear to me and many of the other people in this country. But you just keep the faith along with the other 27% of americans who think we are going in the right direction.;)

[sotxrat]

i agree but from a logical point of view, i would think there would have to be even more reasons, it is, as you know a byproduct of oil and gas, i try to rationlize it in that the u.s. is so enviromental crazy that the chemicals added to diesel to make it burn cleaner are very expensive to add but this is a weak argument as well,

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by sotxrat
i agree but from a logical point of view, i would think there would have to be even more reasons, it is, as you know a byproduct of oil and gas, i try to rationlize it in that the u.s. is so enviromental crazy that the chemicals added to diesel to make it burn cleaner are very expensive to add but this is a weak argument as well,
The diesel argument is one that requires more thought. But the big issue is the conversion to ultra low sulphur diesel. It requires an additive to allow fuel pump lubrication to stay as it was with previous diesel. It costs more to make and demand is high. Diesel over the last ten years has been working it's way up the price scale. and of course more taxes. And also diesel is used more in other countries than here.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. There is no Iron Clad Proof (YET!) but there is plenty of motive, circumstantial evidence that is extreemly suspisious, and Oil Profits though the roof! But go ahead and stick your head in the sand... its clear to me and many of the other people in this country. But you just keep the faith along with the other 27% of americans who think we are going in the right direction.;) And you keep latching onto that 20% approval rating of congress.:thumbsup:

BTW - I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I am in the 73% that don't like what the president is doing because he won't do anything about the border. That doesn't mean that I line up with the socialist party and their agenda.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. There is no Iron Clad Proof (YET!) but there is plenty of motive, circumstantial evidence that is extreemly suspisious, and Oil Profits though the roof! But go ahead and stick your head in the sand... its clear to me and many of the other people in this country. But you just keep the faith along with the other 27% of americans who think we are going in the right direction.;)

BTW I never said we were going any direction. But if asked I would say that we are at a crossroads with the left trying it's dead level best to change the direction to go down the man made global warming big oil is to blame we agree even if we still fly our lears and drive our hummers and tax you to death direction and that would seem to be the wrong way to go.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Here you go TXbroadcaster

Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a series of meetings with a group of energy industry representatives and lobbyists. From these meetings, the Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
For months, Vice President Cheney refused to release the names of participants, citing presidential privilege to conduct consultations in private. However, Congress's non-partisan investigative and oversight arm, the General Accounting Office (GAO), filed an unprecedented lawsuit to obtain the names of the industrialists who met with the Bush Administration to shape his National Energy Plan. Environmentalists filed suit as well. The names of the industry experts are finally, if slowly, being released, revealing that the administration had given environmental groups only three days to provide input in writing, while meeting in person with the energy lobby time after time.
One participant was grudgingly revealed by Cheney early on: Former Enron CEO and George W Bush's most generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay Cheney admitted that he and/or his staff met at least six times with Lay on energy policy issues. Congressmember Henry Waxman (D-CA) subsequently identified 17 different provisions of the Bush National Energy Plan bill that would have benefited Enron. At least one Executive Order on energy policy was virtually identical to draft proposals submitted by the American Petroleum Institute.

Sounds like a conection to me...
:thinking: :clap: :thinking: Why hide it? why the effort to hide it?

Come on, Black Magic. Ken Lay? He's been dead for almost two years (July 5, 2006). Can't you at least quote current news?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That doesn't mean that I line up with the socialist party and their agenda. Socialist party agenda? Now dont start name calling. You wouldnt like if your party was refered to as the Facist party would you?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
TX he cannot. He has faith in his belief that does not allow facts to intrude. The funny thing is that he believes it. If there was a conspiracy of sorts the libs would be all over it. The papers too.
A chance to shoot down the guys in power and put them in jail.
The conservatives would not recover for years. Yet no one is charging these guys with anything because there is nothing. This reminds me of a Simpson's episode:

Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?

Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Socialist party agenda? Now dont start name calling. You wouldnt like if your party was refered to as the Facist party would you? Big difference:

The liberals want to take money from people and companies that do well and give it to people who can't (or in many cases won't) work for their own money. That is socialism.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Come on, Black Magic. Ken Lay? He's been dead for almost two years (July 5, 2006). Can't you at least quote current news? Well Im talking about the administrations policy toward Oil and Big oil companies. This happened very early in the presidency. Takes time for things to be put into effect. First you have to plan. The post your talking about deals with the planning. Planning that Bush and Chenney wanted to keep secret:thinking: Wonder Why??? I think we are seeing the Fruits of such policy right now.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I think we are seeing the Fruits of such policy right now. And you are entitled to your opinion, but again this is just what you "think". There is no proof. You want to go on what you "think" rather than listen to people who are educated about the market and what drives prices. Don't rely on emotion to make decisions.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This reminds me of a Simpson's episode:

Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?

Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Bout the size of it. The papers would love to string Bush up and the dems and libs as well. Notice I differentiate. Some dems are as conservative or moderate. I do not lump people together to stereotype. I leave that sort of lack of sophistry to others. What is most noticeable is how the left wants to politicize what is basically an economic issue and criminalize it as well. It is the same logic they tried on guns and gun owners. Make it illegal to defend yourself because some criminal has a gun.

[Ranger Mom]

http://www.mikeshorts.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/thinice1.JPG

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
http://www.mikeshorts.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/thinice1.JPG nice...:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
http://www.mikeshorts.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/thinice1.JPG

ROFLMAO.... way to go mom..........

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Big difference:

The liberals want to take money from people and companies that do well and give it to people who can't (or in many cases won't) work for their own money. That is socialism. You mean tax those who are doing exceptionaly well and use it for the country and the needs like Public education / roads /bridges/ parks/ officers and.sometimes feeding hungry children whose parents cant seeme to earn enough to fully provide for them.. thats socialism?? no. its Progressive. the industrial Revolution ended years ago... Climb out of the past. To claim that individual freedoms and privacy should come back seat to what the government feels is important or needed is facism. sounds familiar..:thinking:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You mean tax those who are doing exceptionaly well and use it for the country and the needs like Public education / roads /bridges/ parks/ officers and.sometimes feeding hungry children whose parents cant seeme to earn enough to fully provide for them.. thats socialism?? To tax only those that are doing well is socialism. Yes. Call it what you will, but that, my friend, is socialism.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
To claim that individual freedoms and privacy should come back seat to what the government feels is important or needed is facism. sounds familiar..:thinking:

You TRULY have no clue what Fascism means

government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.[2][3][4][5]
.


Fascism is Government OVER individual, not the other way around

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
You TRULY have no clue what Fascism means

government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.[2][3][4][5]
.


Fascism is Government OVER individual, not the other way around

:thumbsup: :iagree:

Good lick!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You mean tax those who are doing exceptionaly well and use it for the country and the needs like Public education / roads /bridges/ parks/ officers and.sometimes feeding hungry children whose parents cant seeme to earn enough to fully provide for them.. thats socialism?? no. its Progressive. the industrial Revolution ended years ago... Climb out of the past. To claim that individual freedoms and privacy should come back seat to what the government feels is important or needed is facism. sounds familiar..:thinking:


No that is not facism that is more like socialism. Taking money from people just because they have it is no justification. The constitution still says that direct apportionment is the only fair tax system. And the government is not my mother. I do not need them to feed me, clothe me, educate my kids, or any of these other things you mention. We did just fine as a country before they decided they should rule over us and we would do just as well now without interference. REdistribution of wealth in any form is socialism and close to communism. These forms of government have never worked.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
http://www.mikeshorts.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/thinice1.JPG
I tried to "help". ;)



Oh, and nice picture! :devil:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
To tax only those that are doing well is socialism. Yes. Call it what you will, but that, my friend, is socialism.
Facism is this..
1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

--Progressivism-- is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties such as the American Progressive Party organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[1]

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Both accurate translations.

Progressive has not been around since the early 30's and is no longer in vogue. Facism is from the same era as well. And neither form has been around since really.
Today you have socialism (see Europe) and a Republican democracy see US and most everything else. Chavez is leading a Facist government at this time and who knows what Cuba actually is for examples.

The reason we are not progressive is because progressives in Roosevelts day still believed in a more restricted role of government unlike to days libs who are much more of a Socialist bent with higher taxes and we will take care of you from the womb to the tomb. That sort of government is quite simply unconstitutional.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Big difference:

The liberals want to take money from people and companies that do well and give it to people who can't (or in many cases won't) work for their own money. That is socialism.

If it were Socialism then why haven't Republicans put a stop to such travesty? :hand:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Both accurate translations.

Progressive has not been around since the early 30's and is no longer in vogue.

That's my Car Insurance Company!!!:eek: :eek: :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If it were Socialism then why haven't Republicans put a stop to such travesty? :hand:

They have in many cases lowering welfare for example. However W has stepped in it big time with his medicare bs.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
To tax only those that are doing well is socialism. Yes. Call it what you will, but that, my friend, is socialism.

Why do economists have classifications for taxation in the form of progressive and regressive? Must have been a bunch of liberal hippy socialists who came up with those terms to classify taxation. Trickle down and supply-side economics have yet to boast economic benefits for our country; see Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush for proof in this matter, along with the Great Depression. You Republicans really don't get it, do you? Do you want our country to have a large disparity between the rich and the poor? How is that any different than what takes place in Communist countries? Please, explain it to me, because apparently you have the infinite wisdom to slander the political beliefs of people, so you must have a reason for it that is plausible and not laughable. All I see is a bunch of garbage typed in a somewhat coherent manner that displays a total lack of depth and breadth of knowledge on the part of those who are saying it. I see fancy ten dollar words and eloquence in writing used but lacks in content. There is no doubt that some of you are intelligent, but just because it sounds good doesn't mean that what you're saying is credible.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Facism is this..
1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

--Progressivism-- is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties such as the American Progressive Party organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[1]

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

that is not what u said fascism was earlier..u claimed it was individuals over government

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
They have in many cases lowering welfare for example. However W has stepped in it big time with his medicare bs.

Yeah, there are people who cheat the system, but nobody wants that on either side of the political spectrum. There are, however, people who do need government assistance. I find it laughable how Republicans stand for pro-life and are willing to take away individual freedoms but stand up and say no to taxation on our wealthier citizens and have families living in poverty. The way it seems is that you want some children to be born into families who are dirt poor and grow up starving, without healthcare, and without the basic necessities in life just so you can sleep better at night saying you were pro-choice and that you kept large corporations from being overburdened with taxation.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
that is not what u said fascism was earlier..u claimed it was individuals over government

Do you really think he reads everything he copies and pastes!!:p

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
. I find it laughable how Republicans stand for pro-life and are willing to take away individual freedoms .

One reason is the republicn platform of less government more state and individual rights were lost IMO on the Christian Crusade of the Republican party over the 20 years, Now they want more individual freedoms eliminated in the name of morals

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
One reason is the republicn platform of less government more state and individual rights were lost IMO on the Christian Crusade of the Republican party over the 20 years, Now they want more individual freedoms eliminated in the name of morals

Exactly, hence the Patriot Act being implemented and the massive brainwashing that took place over Americans in the name of freedom from terrorism. It's ridiculous to believe that the Republican party wants less government when they want to take away individual freedoms that are granted to us in the Constitution, that is the exact opposite; they (the Republican party and large corporations) are trying to tighten the noose around our necks while lining their pockets in the process, and people are so naive to step forward and buy into it.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Trickle down and supply-side economics have yet to boast economic benefits for our country; see Ronald Reagan, Yep. No benefits there...aside from fighting the Russians in an arms race while at the same time keeping our country from tanking. Oh, and you're welcome for all the money companies were able to put into research during the late 80's and early 90's. (see tech boom in mid 90s)

But you're right. We have no clue.;)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yep. No benefits there...aside from fighting the Russians in an arms race while at the same time keeping our country from tanking. Oh, and you're welcome for all the money companies were able to put into research during the late 80's and early 90's. (see tech boom in mid 90s)

But you're right. We have no clue.;)

We're still paying for the debts that were incurred under Ronald Reagan's tenure as President. Thanks for playing. :)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The way it seems is that you want some children to be born into families who are dirt poor and grow up starving, without healthcare, and without the basic necessities in life just so you can sleep better at night saying you were pro-choice and that you kept large corporations from being overburdened with taxation. Where you and I differ BBDE is that I believe it is up to each individual to help their fellow citizens, not the government.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yep. No benefits there...aside from fighting the Russians in an arms race while at the same time keeping our country from tanking. Oh, and you're welcome for all the money companies were able to put into research during the late 80's and early 90's. (see tech boom in mid 90s)

But you're right. We have no clue.;)

Oh, and for the record, you can't attribute something that happened in the 90's as for as technological advances are concerned to the economic policies of Reagan and Bush, I mean, come on, are you serious? You're smarter than that...

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Exactly, hence the Patriot Act being implemented and the massive brainwashing that took place over Americans in the name of freedom from terrorism. It's ridiculous to believe that the Republican party wants less government when they want to take away individual freedoms that are granted to us in the Constitution, that is the exact opposite; they (the Republican party and large corporations) are trying to tighten the noose around our necks while lining their pockets in the process, and people are so naive to step forward and buy into it.

along some of the same lines yes, but the Patriot Act IMO was something both sides thought was needed...I am talking about the Government stepping in to more Moralistic beliefs. That is where IMO both sides have infringed on individual rights

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
We're still paying for the debts that were incurred under Ronald Reagan's tenure as President. Thanks for playing. :) You're not speaking (typing) Russian.:)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Where you and I differ BBDE is that I believe it is up to each individual to help their fellow citizens, not the government.

So you think that it's right for the government to give the same tax rates to a person who makes $20,000 a year with a family of four to feed and a person who makes $2,000,000 a year, drives a Ferrari to work, and lives a nice, plush lifestyle? I'm not saying take away from the rich man's lifestyle, but most are unwilling to put forth the effort or concern for their fellow citizens. What we're seeing today with the regressive taxation model that the United States is following is a dissolving of the middle class and the broadening gap between the rich and the poor. Something just doesn't seem right here. Also, if the tax cuts are supposed to stimulate the economy, then why is the price of everything going up and the only people seeing benefits are the large corporations and not the consumers? Isn't that the point of the taxation model that we are implementing now? Seems like a failure to me, but I don't know anything, I'm just a kid.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You're not speaking (typing) Russian.:)

Russia would have tanked regardless of whether or not we spent as much as we did, they were at war with another nation. Look at what great things that needless wars like the one Russia was in is doing for our economy. Thanks for playing. :)

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Where you and I differ BBDE is that I believe it is up to each individual to help their fellow citizens, not the government.

I was at the grocery store at lunch and watched a lady pay for her groceries with her Lone Star card and then head straight to the "Lottery Ticket vending machine" where she proceeded to buy $35 dollars worth of Lottery Tickets.......it was so touching, just about brought a tear to my eye!!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Russia would have tanked regardless of whether or not we spent as much as we did, Nice opinion.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
So you think that it's right for the government to give the same tax rates to a person who makes $20,000 a year with a family of four to feed and a person who makes $2,000,000 a year, drives a Ferrari to work, and lives a nice, plush lifestyle? Yes. Believe it or not a flat tax would eliminate many of the loopholes that exist and would create a much more fair tax system.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I was at the grocery store at lunch and watched a lady pay for her groceries with her Lone Star card and then head straight to the "Lottery Ticket vending machine" where she proceeded to buy $35 dollars worth of Lottery Tickets.......it was so touching, just about brought a tear to my eye!!

Like I said, nobody likes anyone who abuses the system on either side. I for one am against amnesty and am willing to split from my party on what I believe in. I don't believe in having coat tail riders.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I for one am against amnesty and am willing to split from my party on what I believe in. I don't believe in having coat tail riders. Unfortunately neither party is willing to do anything about it. (at least not the presidential candidates)

[DaHop72]

And on a lighter note, Sweetwater to finish 5th in new district.:devil: :devil: :devil:

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by DaHop72
And on a lighter note, Sweetwater to finish 5th in new district.:devil: :devil: :devil:


In baseball...maybe.:(








In football...no chance whatsoever.:devil:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yes. Believe it or not a flat tax would eliminate many of the loopholes that exist and would create a much more fair tax system.

Fair for who though? The kids of the parents who work minimum wage jobs because they couldn't afford to go to college?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Yeah, there are people who cheat the system, but nobody wants that on either side of the political spectrum. There are, however, people who do need government assistance. I find it laughable how Republicans stand for pro-life and are willing to take away individual freedoms but stand up and say no to taxation on our wealthier citizens and have families living in poverty. The way it seems is that you want some children to be born into families who are dirt poor and grow up starving, without healthcare, and without the basic necessities in life just so you can sleep better at night saying you were pro-choice and that you kept large corporations from being overburdened with taxation.

Take away individual freedoms. Please share would you. I see the left taking away the most freedoms specifically gun rights etc.
As far as the patriot act, The supreme court screwed that one up.
Same for Mccain Feingold. Neither should have been constitutional but thanks to the leftward slant of the judges at the time guess what we got.....?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Fair for who though? The kids of the parents who work minimum wage jobs because they couldn't afford to go to college?
The best tax system is a users tax IE National sales tax. In that system users pay what they use no more or less. It allows poor people to pay only what they can and rich will pay for whatever they buy.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Take away individual freedoms. Please share would you. I see the left taking away the most freedoms specifically gun rights etc.
As far as the patriot act, The supreme court screwed that one up.
Same for Mccain Feingold. Neither should have been constitutional but thanks to the leftward slant of the judges at the time guess what we got.....?

Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, illegal wire-tapping, etc.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
The best tax system is a users tax IE National sales tax. In that system users pay what they use no more or less. It allows poor people to pay only what they can and rich will pay for whatever they buy.

Well let's vote some more regressive taxation politicians into office then, shall we?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
The best tax system is a users tax IE National sales tax. In that system users pay what they use no more or less. It allows poor people to pay only what they can and rich will pay for whatever they buy.

I'm no expert, but I see a big problem with a flat tax and/or users tax. Our municipal governments use bonds to finance infrastructure as well as other needs. They are able to borrow at a lower rate because the interest they pay is tax-free to the lenders. If we change the current tax system, our cost of government will necessarily increase. This is of course not the case with the federal government, however in the past they have always relied on that "AAA" rating to get a lower rate.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Fair for who though? The kids of the parents who work minimum wage jobs because they couldn't afford to go to college?

please explain then how like 90% totalof taxes are paid by the top 10% income earners

if someone is only making 20K a year they will get a efund and most likely more with earned income credit

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
please explain then how like 90% totalof taxes are paid by the top 10% income earners

if someone is only making 20K a year they will get a efund and most likely more with earned income credit Exactly. If the current system is so good, why do we continue to have generation after generation on welfare? Answer: Because they won't do something about it themselves. They believe that the government will take care of them. There is no incentive to do better.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Russia would have tanked regardless of whether or not we spent as much as we did, they were at war with another nation. Look at what great things that needless wars like the one Russia was in is doing for our economy. Thanks for playing. :)

That just shows you did not grow up with that war and do not know anything about it. The Russians failed because their system could not handle the imbalance put on them by their leaders to stay in the military race with us. Just look at there military now. Non existent. They cannot afford it. Could not then without crippling themselves. You really should read a whole lot more than what you think you believe. Not knocking you BBDE. I like you. Smart and use your head. Just need more info.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Fair for who though? The kids of the parents who work minimum wage jobs because they couldn't afford to go to college? Do what many Americans do...get a loan/second job and make it happen. Quit depending on the government to solve you problems.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
That just shows you did not grow up with that war and do not know anything about it. The Russians failed because their system could not handle the imbalance put on them by their leaders to stay in the military race with us. Just look at there military now. Non existent. They cannot afford it. Could not then without crippling themselves. You really should read a whole lot more than what you think you believe. Not knocking you BBDE. I like you. Smart and use your head. Just need more info. True. The arms race is what crippled the Russian economy.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Do what many Americans do...get a loan/second job and make it happen. Quit depending on the government to solve you problems.

In 1986 after the crash, my husband (now ex husband) and I both lost our jobs and we had a new baby!!

My dad told me to get on food stamps...he said by God he paid those taxes in and he would feel better knowing that someone who really needed it got them.

We were on them for 2 months.....and that was the most embarrassing thing to me!! This was before the days of the LoneStar card...I got to pull out a booklet of Monopoly money!!

I think it's pathetic that people just stay on them year after year and it doesn't seem to bother them at all.

I know someone right now that is on them....she has 2 kids and is living with the dad of the last kid. She is on foodstamps, WIC, medicaid....and her B/F makes plenty of money....they just don't see any reason for her to stop getting all the free stuff if she doesn't have too!!:mad: :mad:

That attitude is extremely prevalent!!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom


That attitude is extremely prevalent!! And the government can't fix attitude.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
That just shows you did not grow up with that war and do not know anything about it. The Russians failed because their system could not handle the imbalance put on them by their leaders to stay in the military race with us. Just look at there military now. Non existent. They cannot afford it. Could not then without crippling themselves. You really should read a whole lot more than what you think you believe. Not knocking you BBDE. I like you. Smart and use your head. Just need more info.

You can't honestly believe that spending an exorbitant amount of money was the only way to win the Cold War, do you?

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And the government can't fix attitude.

Nope....but could they ever say, "Okay, here is 2 months worth of benefits...get a job.....if you don't find a job in those 2 months, we will find one for you."

Then.....they can send them to Midland because we have the lowest unemployment rate in the state (maybe even the country) right now...and we sure need some people working in some restaurants!!:D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
please explain then how like 90% totalof taxes are paid by the top 10% income earners

if someone is only making 20K a year they will get a efund and most likely more with earned income credit

Regardless of this, our government still implements an unfair regressive form of taxation, no matter how much you try to dress it up. ;)

[BleedOrange]

I agree it is totally unfair but to those who work hard and make a decent living. Too many people refuse to work hard and expect others to provide services for them at the expense of others. I galls me to have people preach about how those who pay most of the taxes should pay more. That is ridiculous! Basically, I should have to pay more taxes therefore restricting my ability to purchase certain things because its "not fair" that I earn good living. My extra income should go to others. Makes perfect sense. The consumption tax makes the most sense. I can be charged based upon what I spend. This elimates all of the cheating that takes place within the current code. You don't spend you don't pay taxes.

Also, with regard to oil company profits more power to them. Exxon Mobil has been making roughly 10 net profits which is not an unreasonable amount. There are numerous companies (too many to mention) that make higher profit levels than Exxon but their high revenue volume makes the number unpalatable to some. Until such time as our government get out of the way and allows free market conditions to dictate we will continue to suffer high prices.