(Lake Martin Specific)
111,170 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 5:46:58 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,644 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 9:14:08 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,170 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 5:21:13 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Funny...
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 9:20:35 AM
|
Subject: Joe the plumber and obama
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it. Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood where it’s obvious that all the residents make well over $250,000 per year. Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe immediately says, “$9,500.” “$9,500?” Obama asks, stunned. “But you said it’s an easy repair!” “Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free,” explains Joe. “It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, senator.” In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing. The leak under Obama’s sink goes without repair for the next several days. A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return. Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says “Let’s see – this will cost you about $21,000.” “A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!” Obama quickly fires back. Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. “Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day. “Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced – nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too – all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share.” Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: “Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?” Joe immediately replies, “Run for president, I guess.”
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Funny...
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 9:27:01 AM
|
Isn't Joe the Plumber considering a run for Congress?? I've also heard that he's geting a record deal?
He's gotten a lot of mileage "out of his 15 minutes of fame".
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Funny...
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 9:31:17 AM
|
I have no idea. Since he is unemployed (didn't I hear that?) I guess one can't blame him for using the fame. Everyone has to start somewhere - whether it's running for councilman in a small town, being the Mayor or Wasilla or being a Community Organizer in Chicago slums, right?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Funny...
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 9:45:12 AM
|
First ... good story ... sums it all up nicely what we can expect.
Second, I saw that the woman that "investigated Joe" and disclosed information is now being investigated herself since there was not cause to do what she did other than political gain. It happens the woman is a BO supporter and has contributed the max to his campaign and has done volunteer work. So now there is a law suit against her and the county for what they did to Joe and illegally disclosing personal information to the public.
I hope she has deep pockets to defend herself in court. No one in government should be allowed to use access to information for personal or political gain .... when they do they should be treated like a criminal that they are.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 9:58:00 AM
|
Trying to change the subject from a very pointed funny story that belies the truth of Obamination's wealth redistribution schemes. You see, it makes perfect sense and is a metaphor for what we will get. It has every time its been tried and it will every time we try it again. Those who foolishly refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 10:16:07 AM
|
Well, I agree it is a clever story. Good use of illustration.
You know I don't agree with you about Obama so I'm not going to waste my breath.
I'm not trying to change the subject at all. It just made me think about how every time someone gets their 15 minutes of fame -- well, lets call it an hour, after McCain used it as an illustration in the debates, they suddenly have a "platform" and feel they need to use that platform. If I heard that inspired him to run for political office in his home town, well, I think that is great. But Congress? These people get used by the political machine for political purposes and then they fade into obscurity.
After today's election is over, I hope we're all still around in 4 years to talk about whether we're better off or worse off, depending on who gets elected.
Serious question: What do you think Exxon is going to do with their $14B in profits? Will they be creating new jobs or putting it into reseach? How many new jobs can you create for $14B?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 10:39:01 AM
|
I have to respond to the Exxon piece .... Exxon is a HUGE company. They are publically trade, investor look for a return on their money just like any company they invest in. Return are expected to be higher for taking an unsecured risk vs a CD.
No matter which measure you use ROE, ROI, RONA, ROS .... there are plenty of companies that have much better returns. You can not look at "dollars" of profit. If they were ten smaller companies (which they do have at least 10 separate divisions, from chemicals, plastics, drilling, refining, wind, research, solar, etc) would you focus on them? Companies merge for efficiency and cost savings .... normally the jobs that are eliminated are at the top not at the bottom .... so I would think you would look favorably on that. They merged with Mobile Oil a long time ago.
By some of the measure above they are not the most successful oil company, there are much better returning ones. I for one own stock in Marathon Oil "MRO" (just bought it yesterday). They have much better returns and dividend yeild than Exxon, but is a much smaller company.
When oil companies were sucking wind when Oil was $20 -$30 a barrel, were people saying they were not making enough money for their shareholders? Stocks go up and down, just because we are in an up period doesn't mean we should "take more away" .... who is the government to say how much they should earn? Oil is now down to $60 a barrel and gas prices have followed, the rise in oil was partly do to speculator not the oil companies and the weak US dollar which benefits US job creation. Now that the dollar is getting much stronger, oil prices are coming down.
If you need me to explain the effect of a weak vs strong dollar on imports and exports let me know. All I will say is a strong US dollar makes imports much cheaper and will destroy US job market as it will be cheaper to import products, plus companies that export will be hurt since their products will cost more.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 12:08:44 PM
|
I hope they give every penny to their shareholders.
Exxon provides good paying jobs to over 83,000 employees which generates at least $3 billion in annual income.
In 2007 alone Exxon provided almost $180 million in charitable donations (not counting donations made by their 83,000 employees that were able to do so because of the jobs)
In just the first quarter of 2008 Exxon paid $9.3 billion in taxes and paid over $30 billion in 2007.
In 2007 alone alone Exxon spent $3.8 billion on environmental expenditures (cleanups, pollution control, development of alternative energy sources, etc.).
All police cars, ambulances, church buses and your car are operated by petroleum hydrocarbons produced and refined by evil corporations like Exxon.
How many jobs did all the poor people in this country create, how much in charitable donations, how much in taxes and how much have they spent on the environment? This approach of complaining about "big" business is so intellectually bankrupt that it is hardly worth the 3 minutes it took me to find out what a huge, positive influence Exxon has.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 1:29:26 PM
|
That's all fine, well and good, but you didn't answer my question -- will Exxon create jobs with their profits?
Repeatedly, you both have told me that unless companies get tax cuts, they won't create new jobs. So I want to know if you think Exxon will be creating new jobs with its profits.
I think the answer is not really. And that's why I question how much the additional taxing of companies will really affect their job creation. I'm sure that what you say is true for some smaller companies. But, these giant companies -- I'm happy if they tax the stew out of them.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 1:39:15 PM
|
Companies that size are constantly creating jobs .... but they do not create jobs they do not need. They create them as they grow bigger.
Exxon is investing heavily in fuel cell technology for future electric cars ... they are creating jobs in that area.
If McCain was elected and we started drilling in the US in "proven" areas so we could reduce imports, Exxon and all the drilling companies would create jobs. And as the drill more all the US companies that build the rigs and the equipment would create more jobs too. When we just import more and more ... it is other countries creating the jobs to supply to us.
Exxon does import that oil to meet the demands of people like you and others.
The dems keep saying they are not drilling in areas approved .... the cost to set up a rig is huge, if there are not enough reserves they will not drill ... they have a responsibility to their shareholders to get a return and make those profits that MM has pointed out generates billions of tax revenue to the feds.
But if they opened up areas that have the proven reserves, we would import less and create thousands of jobs.
So to answer your question .... companies do not create jobs based on what their profits are, they create jobs based on growth and demand. So if given the opportunity to grow, they would create jobs. What are they going to do just hire people for the sake of hiring like the government does .... we need a person to carry the pencils, someone else to sharpen and someone else to write with them.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again!
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 1:56:28 PM
|
Hound, you win. I simply give up because I have told you in great detail in my own business how taxes eliminate jobs. You are either completely ignorant of basic economics or you simply will never, ever listen to the truth. Come to Atlanta and I will sit you down with my CFO and she will open our books and show you how this works. I swear, I will pay your gas. I'll buy you lunch and dinner. I'll put you up in a hotel. Whatever you want!
As for whether Exxon will create jobs let me ask you a simple question. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK THEY CREATED 83,000 JOBS?!?!?!?! Are you really that obtuse? Of course they will create more jobs. That's how they went from 1 job when they started the business to 83,000 jobs today. Do you think those people just showed up yesterday and Exxon magically had 83,000 jobs? Do you realize that stock value is based on revenue and profit growth and that is accomplished by hiring new employees to grow the business?
I am sorry that I am so exasperated but I can't believe someone that can operate a computer can't understand something so basic. Please tell me you are being ideological and refuse to accept the truth.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
One other ? hound
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 2:26:04 PM
|
If exxon all of a sudden said we do not want to make a profit and said we will create as many jobs as they need to in order to breakeven ... now exxon would no longer pay those billions in taxes to the feds .... if they create all those jobs under $250,000 a year they would not be rich people so would not have to pay a lot in taxes.
Forget that all the other things like ... what would these people do and if Exxon just broke even there would be other issues like they can't invest and buy capital equipment that creates other jobs. But lets assume they just create all those additional jobs so they breakeven .... is the US better off? Is the government better off?
I would think the answers to all that is no ... most people do not want jobs, they want to contribute to society and know what they are doing is meaninful. And no the government would not be better off tax wise .... from from it. And all the secondary jobs Exxon creates through investments of their profits to grow creates many other jobs at other companies.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW, I give up
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 2:36:05 PM
|
It gets so depressing to think she is probably more educated and intelligent than a good many Obama voters. She's already indicated she attended government schools which only confirms my decision to send my children to private school. My 17 year old understands this concept.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW, I give up
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 4:03:21 PM
|
I understand your concept, but not your reasoning. Of course companies don't create jobs they don't need.
I just don't understand why you think it is wrong to raise the taxes on these huge companies. MM - I believe you said that you own a medium/small company -- so I can definitely see the cause and effect. Relatively speaking, I assume your business is pretty transparent, business-wise. Putting new mandatory health care requirements on you, raising your taxes, etc, I can see why you could not create new jobs, assuming you had the business to do so.
Sometimes I feel like I'm back at work when I'm on this board... LOL. I had a constant stream of companies telling me how I didn't understand their business either, but the problem was, I understood it too well. My agency dealt quite a bit on foreign companies buying US companies (from a technology basis) and sometimes we would be forced to put restrictions on them moving jobs offshore or closing down product lines. So while I am sure I don't understand it as well as you, I'm not totally ignorant.
In my last job, I ran the operations of a small government agency with its own budget and expenses -- granted we didn't have to make a profit, but we did have to have a balanced budget. It's not quite as cut and dried as you might think. And sometimes we got whacked out budget cuts in the middle of the year. Or our cash flow would be constrained arbitrarily by the comptroller. And I had to be able to cut funds in one place, to fund new jobs too because our mission would be expanded.
As far as my attending public school, I have to say that (with regret) the public school I attended were much better funded than those in Alabama. And back in the day, the class sizes were much smaller than they are now too. I'm really in favor of spending money on education, so people aren't put the position of having to send their kids to private school.
I hope Exxon is spending money on research for new energy sources.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Profits VS. Profit Margins
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 4:17:12 PM
|
Exxon made about 8% profit last year. That is single digit profit margin. Lets see you start a business and make it survive with a single digit profit margin. You couldn't. There are so many businesses/industries that operate on so much higher margins as to make this whole argument ludicrous. Another thing, North America sales are only about 5% of Exxon revenues. So what is the big deal if they make profit? Profit makes the world go round. I will have to give it to the dems, they have done an excellent propaganda job on the American public.
I can't remember which hedge fund Chelsea Clintion was working for before she took LOA to work on her moms campaign, but I do remember that the company had a profit margin of approaching 90%. Nobody demonized them.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW, I give up
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 4:28:49 PM
|
I guess my main point is that companies are in business to grow revenue and profits and that any taxation has an adverse impact on the ability of those companies to do so. Reasonable people can argue about what is an appropriate level of taxation and I suspect you would be more comfortable with larger numbers than would I. That part is OK because that is just an opinion. As long as we agree that it does have an impact on business then I don't have any qualms with you having the view that more is better, or at least more is acceptable. I simply don't agree with your opinion but as the old saying goes, opinions are like a certain part of anatomy, everyone has one.
On a macro scale the United States already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I am of the opinion that this is one of many factors that cause jobs to go overseas (along with the cost of labor, regulations, currency issues, etc.). It is certainly not the only factor, and may not be the biggest factor. But it does have an impact that I think is counterproductive and given our already high level of taxation why do we want to make our businesses less competitive?
And I keep wanting to go back to my point that the consumers, not corporations, pay taxes. We simply pay more for the goods and services in order for the corporation to pay higher taxes. Now you could argue that the shareholders will just have to accept lower profitability so the corporation does not have to pass the increased costs onto the consumer. Unfortunately, as you know from your experience in business it doesn't always work that way. In any event, every single penny that runs through a corporation comes from the customer, taxpayers like you and me, so any increased cost of a corporation that they can pass through to the customer they will.
Part of what is frustrating to me is I know you know this which makes it all the more mystifying to me to try to defend Obama's tax and wealth redistribution approach. Perhaps these are not threshold issues for you and others drive you that way or maybe I have it wrong. In either event, you cancelled my vote and I cancelled yours so there!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Profits VS. Profit Margins
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 4:46:55 PM
|
I'm not demonizing anyone. I like companies to make a profit, particularly those that I have stock in.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Totally agree with your 2nd pa
|
|
Date:
|
11/4/2008 4:58:09 PM
|
ragraph. It certainly seems to work for States that create a favorable climate to attract business and jobs.
You make an excellent point.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
