Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Oil Execs v. Public School Teachers

Barack Obama wants to "penalize" oil companies for benefitting from the high price of gasoline.

Anyone for increasing taxes on public school teachers?

Afterall, the cost of education has risen faster in the last 20 years than gas.

Obama's solution: Pay teachers more.

45 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

Sure. Steal money from successful companies because he feels entitled to a piece of their profits (Socialism) and using that stolen cash for more brainwashing Liberal “educating” of the next generation (Communism). Just like a true Leftist.

April 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

You almost had it, Diano.

Actually, education is a not-for-profit, price-gouging business.

April 15, 2008 at 9:04 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

David,

Could you show me any court case where any oil company in the US was convicted of price gouging? Since you can't, would you mind retracting your false statement that oil is a "for-profit price-gouging business?" It is false, and a lie.

I hope you aren't going to try and compare the price of books (what books do colleges or private schools pay for by the way?) to that of PP&E investments by oil companies. Could you put a dollar amount on the new oil refinery going in Texas in the coming years? Oh that's right, 8-10 BILLION for one company. Just so that more oil can be refined. Lets not go into the billions all the oil companies put out so they could produce ULSD fuel.

Then again, the only thing in the billions colleges have are endowments. Not such a bad thing.

And teachers aren't underpaid. They work less than 9 months of the year for less than 40 hour work weeks. They teach the same material over and over unless a new book comes out or they pick up a new class. Have you seen their obscene benefits that corporate america comes no-where near? Oh wait, lets not forget that whole argument along with the insane retirement plans teachers get.

April 15, 2008 at 10:54 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 15, 2008 at 11:21 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Can you ever tell the truth? Please stop with the shrill lying, Dave. The oil companies DO NOT price gouge. Theirs is one of the few products in this free market country whose product profit is regulated and capped by the government, at $.08 a gallon. At $.27 our government already makes more from taxing gasoline than the makers do on their own product!

The ONLY legitimate argument (of the many shrill and disingenuous ones made by drooling Socialist Lib$) is the tax breaks oil companies get.

The shakedown of Big Tobacco was another Socialist inquisition. And this is another product where the price is set by the government. It is kept artificially high to increase the taxation (spreading wealth -Socialism) while deterring smoking (behavior control -Commieism). And boy do smokes get taxed.

Another lie… Teachers are NOT “laid off” three months out of the year. They continue to get paid for those months they are not working. We should all be so lucky.
And people don’t value teachers because of the crappy job they’re doing at “educating” kids while filling their heads with Lib indoctrination.

April 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

David,

Your comment: "Of course the oil companies price gouge. Prosecuting them for it is extremely difficult because of their vast monopoly power and how they control the price."

If it is "so obvious," then why is it so hard to prosecute? What can an oil company do to stop litigation? What about all the pending MTBE litigation by small counties around the US? Remember SMALL counties. So a small county can take on an oil company, but the US government can't? Doesn't make sense. The oil industry has been investigated over 5times for price gouging. Each result: not guilty.

You also miss a key point about Exxon. Exxon was brought to court about the Valdez oil spill. Verdicts take years and years to settle. Mumia comes to mind. No where does that mean you can't start the lawsuit. Under your pretenses, nobody would be sued or brought to trial because, "it may take awhile for the final (end all) judgment." News flash: most court cases do take years. How many people have parental estates that drag for 3-5 years? A ton. Doesn't mean people just pass on the issue.

I never said oil companies should get tax breaks, but again, you fail to realize they pay a higher effective tax rate than any of the Fortune 50 companies. Let's stop those companies tax breaks too. It's like you don't realize how large Exxon is after its merger.

Teachers are laid off? I don't agree at all. How do you receive benefits and are able to work another job if you are laid off? You can't, teachers can. They aren't laid off.

I don't value education. Please David, I think HBS undergrad with a Wharton MBA, then being a director at McKinsey (true consulting, not IT) proves I care about education.

Best and the brightest go to teacher on pay alone? The best and brightest go Ibanking, management consulting, PE, or hedge funds. All starting at 100k. So you are now going to pay teachers a starting salary of 100k across the board in the US? Now to keep with their union fought above inflation raises, you are looking easily at 175k for a teacher with 20 years experience with full benefits and a pension of 80-90% of their top 3 years salary. Now who pays for this? The wind-fall tax on the Clinton's and Obama's earnings?

April 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Don’t even waste your time, Jonas. Dave is dishonest and disingenuous in his every “argument” on this blog (and probably in life). I wonder if he tried to manipulate his own clients and kids with his patented dishonest slant and spin? What a hollow guy.

April 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

jonas, whats your connection or investment? Who go to great lengths to defend big oil?

April 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I meant "Why". Sorry, the usual typing on my part...

April 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Big Tobacco lied to Congress for decades about the harmful effects of smoking. They portrayed smoking as part of an active, healthy, etc. lifestyle. They harmed the public with an additive product that kills 1/3 of the people that use it, and they manipulated the additive properties. I'm not big on the death penalty, but the tobacco executives are the biggest mass murders in history and deserve that penalty more than anyone else ever has.

Oh my God... You are so shrill. Lol...
Death penalty for Tobacco execs?? Hahahaha...
And everyone has known for years that cigs are bad for ya. Everyone but dishonest Libs like you who pretended to be shocked -just shocked!- to find this out. Lol...
You are such a simp. Thanks for proving my point about you to Jonas.

Another thing you'll find about Dave, J... He seems to believe the more words he types the better his "arguments". As we clearly see, this is not the case. Lol...

April 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh brotha… Now you’re weeping about the secondhand smoke farce because you have been told you should be mad about that too. Lol… Do you ever think for yourself? Ever? I mean, about anything? At all?

Everyone has known for a very long time that cigs are bad for one’s health, ya lying dope. Since the 60’s it has said right on the side of the package “Do not smoke these! Smoking these will kill you! Don’t do it!” Not too many legal products come with such warnings to steer customers away from using said product.
And back as far as the 1920 people were referring to them as “coffin nails”. Nah, nobody knew they were bad for them. Lol…

April 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Steve,

So to defend an industry I must have an underlying investment or purpose (a la lobbyist)? I've done tons of work regarding the oil industry and have more knowledge than most in it. Oil companies just don't gauge prices. It's a simple fact. You can buy a gallon of gas cheaper than a gallon of milk. Should we investigate farmers now? I thought not.

The whole point it the oil industry is an easy target because of their profits today, but nobody was backing them 10 years ago when they were all posting net losses and cutting jobs to staf afloat. Exxons pays more in effective taxes per dollar earned than Walmart. If you projected Walmart's earnings to the size of the company Exxon is, Walmart would be larger. Yet, they pay less taxes, hire illegal immigrants for below minimal wage, and force employees to work overtime without pay. Exxon hires all US citizens for all domestic jobs (including shipping of crude) and it still ridiculed.

I just think there is a very big bias in the way the oil industry is viewed because nobody tells the truth about the industry. One doesn't need a motive for that.

Actually, any motive would be useless as most oil companies are projecting huge decreases in Q1 earnings. Sunoco had a net loss in Q4'07 (so much for price gouging huh?). Oil companies stocks have dropped in half in the past year. Not much money to be made in that industry.

April 18, 2008 at 12:12 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

David,

Show me one instance of an oil company "hiding" their price manipulation? Pull their 10k's and crack spreads and show me where this is happening.

Since you "know" they can easily "hide" their price manipulations, you must be able to prove it with the numbers as all oil profits are based off of the crack spread. I'll even give you my email address to send your excel or access file with the calculation for review.

McKinsey isn't impressive? No, it's just the premier management consulting firm in the world and the #1 place of employment for an MBA student.

Could you also explain your thoughts on McKinsey's ideas towards schooling as McKinsey doesn't disclose who they work for or their recommendations? Actually, you got that from wikipedia. Great point.

Dangerous Company: Management... is actually a very good book. Yet again, you fail to provide the truth told in the book because you feel I haven't read it. Actually, the authors agree management consulting can work very well, but the management of the company has to be ready to ask the right questions and know what could go wrong. Also, the AT&T case is very disputed. Why don't you stop just reading one source and taking it for fact. You forgot to mention AT&T hired Andersen, and Monitor consulting to go along with McKinsey (not McK alone like you portray) and the fact AT&T management didn't implement all of McK's recommendations.

Then again, you pulled your whole argument against McK from wikipedia (you should reference your sources). Actually, I'm pretty sure you plagiarized most of it. Very good intellectual talking points David. For someone who tries to act smarter than everyone, that just proves your knowledge.

You're right, anyone can get an MBA today, but not many get one from Wharton. That's the difference (just like law school).

You had a job offer from KPMG? Congrats! Anyone with a 2.8+ undergrad GPA is considered top material for a Big 4 accounting firm (of which KPMG is the lowest revenue generating and rated). Anyone can play with websites. I actually had a full ride to Haverford (your alma mater) but it just wasn't worthy enough.

How many people does McK hire a year? That's right, under 200. It's real easy to get in, I forgot.

David, I'll score as well if not better on any exam than you. 1600 SAT, 179 LSAT, and above a 780 GMAT prove that. Here's the difference between us; you make pitlings designing websites (which takes no knowledge base) while I've worked hand in hand with CEOs and CFOs of the largest companies in the world and turned their company's profits around.

Keep quoting wikipedia Dave. It shows just how smart you are.

April 18, 2008 at 12:40 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

jonas, i could care less about ocmparing oil to other industries, I want to know why you're so into doing cartwheels to defend the industry. I doubt it's out of charity, so reveal you cards and come clean...

April 18, 2008 at 8:00 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Likely for the same reason I defend them, Steve. Because they have been unfairly targeted by the Socialist LibDems salivating at the prospect of stealing their profits here in this free market country. One need not be a fan of the industry to see the underhandedness of the Left’s attacks on Big Business, as Dave illustrates so well here. Just like Big Tobacco.

Seems like Jonas is onto Dave. That didn’t take long. Lol…

Hey, Dishonest Dave, what about Gatorade? Every time I drink it I get more thirsty. I think they manipulate whatever is in there to make me drink more of it. Do you think this should be investigated and if found to be true the Gatorade execs should be executed?
And how about them McDonalds burgers!... There has to be something in them to make them taste so darn good that people keep coming back for more! And they’re not healthy for ya. Should we kill the McDonalds execs too? (snicker)

April 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Steve,
Cartwheels? Far from it. All I'm doing is telling the truth about the industry. That isn't very hard to do. David says the oil industry is a monopoly and that the company (monopolies only have one large company) manipulates prices. To do that, the company must manipulate their expenses/revenue on the general ledger. Therefore, the company must be included phony debits/credits on its G/L. To be price gouging 10 billion (randomly selected) and not be picked up in the company's audit is ridiculous. It would be picked up as the oil industry doesn't use complex derivates, swaps, or repos as the energy industry does.

Steve, why don't you lay your cards out regarding Walmart since you are perfectly fine with their profits, paying less effective tax rates, hiring illegal immigrants, fighting any large insurance claims due to unsafe work environments, and forcing employees to work overtime for free? Lets be honest now: if Walmart was a global company as is Exxon, their profits/revenue would be larger than Exxon. You still don't have an issue? So Exxon should be punished because they are global? Lets remember the simple tax rules that a US company pays taxes on goods sold in the US (Obama and Hillary can't "wind fall" tax Exxon's revenues in the other 5 continents which make up most of Exxon's revenue). Exxon's revenue in its US company is smaller than Walmart's US company (please refer to the segment analysis on the two company's 10k's which are available to the public (you think Obama or Hillary could have a volunteer look this simple info up)).

Why aren't we going after Walmart is my simple question? That means I have a "secret" agenda? All your statement proves is the whole conspiracy and non-debate that can go on today. You claim Exxon price gouges, I know they don't. I ask you to prove this (should be easy as it involves numbers and calc's), you can't, and yet I'm the one with the agenda? All I'm asking is for your or David to show me. Please. Since you can make the comment, you must be able to back it, as I can mine.

I think if I had a card up my sleeve (CEO, CFO, controller of Exxon), I wouldn't be making my case on a Daily Times paper website. I'd take it to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. That may be too logical for you though.

Could you explain how oil companies gouge? Or why it's "too costly" to sue them like David argues (remember small counties are in litigation over MTBE)? Or how the industry is a monopoly and not an oligopoly? These are basics to the industry that people can't grasp, but yet make comments as if they are experts.

Then again, David designs websites I'm sure 12 year olds can design. Remember though, McKinsey isn't successful or effective, but his business is top of the line Bentley-esque.

April 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Lol! I love this guy!

David says the oil industry is a monopoly... (monopolies only have one large company)

Lol... I caught this little slipped-in lie too. See how Libs like Dave can never be honest in any discussion.

April 20, 2008 at 2:15 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

jonas, I'll lay out everything I can about wal-mart - I last shopped there in late 2007, looking for a specific christmas gift. Found it somewhere else. There are no Wal-Marts particularly close to Media, so I'm not a regular/avid shopper. IF you're looking for a Steve McDonald/Wal-Mart connection, feel free to go for it. What else can I tell you?


Once again, reveal your connection. The only time I've seen your posts on the almighty spencerblog is when the discussion is about oil prices & gouging. Again, what's your connection? Do you hold large shares in one of the companies? Are you a consultant to the industry in any way?

I still don't see anyone going out of their way to defend the oil industry for charity...

April 20, 2008 at 8:32 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I think it’s funny how Dave gets all worked up and gets to pounding out so many words whenever is humiliated.
He really seems to think that the more words he writes the more right his words. Lol…
Libs are funny little things.
We should all mourn the 1’s and 0’s needlessly sent to an early grave by Dave and his hurt feelings.

Hint for Dave: It’s about quality, not quantity. As you are finding, all the quantity in the world can’t help if you lack quality (and character).

April 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Steve,

Like I've proved before, oil shares have gone down the past 2 years. No profits to be made holding any company. Actually, if you look at the top 9 revenue generating oil companies, 5 of them had revenues drop from 2006 to 2007, and 2008 is only going to be worse. I'm far from an investor. My only connection would be auditing a small oil company back in the 80s. 20 years ago, while maintaing full independence. There's my link: fully independent auditor 20 years ago. Not much revenue source for me in that.

Also there's a Walmart right around the corner from Media right by the Woodlyn Wawa on MacDade Blvd. Again, as you can't tell the truth, what's your "card?" Why do you walk into a store that hires illegal immigrants (raising US unemployment %s)?

Then again, I buy Alden dress shoes (ridiculously overpriced, but made in the good ol' USA). Guess you found my cards: I buy from companies that keep US citizens employed. Under Obama's "patriotic or unpatriotic" company designations, Exxon would be the golden standard of "patriotic". Pretty funny huh?

And also Steve, I've posted before. It's an online forum, who cares what alias I use? I sure don't. I used Jonas for the oil discussions so my knowledge of the industry can be recognized by readers.

April 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lib,s maybe funny but the conservitives are in charge

April 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM 
Anonymous r said...

As it should be, Anon.

April 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea. were in good shape.

April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

David,

Did you come up with "Jonass" all yourself? It's funny when you can't prove your comments with facts you resort to wikipdedia quotes, then when those go sour, you resort to name calling. Sounds very similiar to an 8th grade bully, but only 3-4 times the age.

You don't have to worry about me doing the name calling or retaliations David, I'm above that. I actually articulate my points with facts that can be supported.

So if you are looking for a name calling game, look else where as I have proved your "factual" comments wrong time and time again about oil.

April 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Yes. Childish name calling when he gets upset is hallmark of Dave’s Libism. Come to think of it, just about all emotional and intellectually challenged petty Libs are like this. They fight like third grade boys when they get mad and cry like third grade girls when they get their feelings hurt.

Don’t believe everything you have been told you should be mad about, Anon. Things aren’t nearly as bad as the Left has led you to believe. They just overblow everything in their endless attacks on the Right in an effort to seize power at all cost, is all.

April 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Libs lie.

April 21, 2008 at 12:41 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Funny how whenever I cite Wikipedia Libs like Dave jump me and call it an unreliable source. Gotta love that inherent Lying Lib hypocrisy.

April 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

David,

The Allstate and McKinsey story is old news. It was a front page headline on Yahoo last summer. Also, the main point McK made was to fight most claims. That is allowed in the "legal" contract you sign when you get car insurance. You can say all you want about how this is big business screwing the little man, but doesn't the little man screw the big business a lot too? I'm sure you know somebody who had a dent in one door, got hit in the other, and had insurance pay for all the damage.

Could you please tell me any illegal action taken by McK in what they did with Allstate other than increase Allstate's revenue and NI?

Remember, your whole argument with AT&T was that McK wasn't brining full revenue and NI possibilities to the company they were serving. Now McK does it with Allsatte, and it is an issue? Which way is it Dave?

In the end Dave, your comments about McK are just funny. The book you quote also talks about the other Big 3 consulting firms, so no matter which one I worked for, you'd argue they suck as a company and are worthless. Then again, I don't think any (prove this wrong David) companies that have been in existance for 75+ years have made the right business choice 100% of the time. The reason people bring in McK, Bain, and BCG is they are right 80-90% of the time which is about 40-60% greater than the company own its own.

Hey DiMaggio hits 400 and nobody can top that. Does that mean every baseball player is worthless since only 100% correct is acceptable as a "decent" company.

Fact is, you got an offer from a company that hires 6500 kids a year. McK hires 200. There's a difference for a reason. The companies you keep bringing up about McK are the largest in the world. I'm sure there's a reason (maybe two or three@!) that Fortune 100 companies keep coming back to McK. Is it possible that maybe they realize something you don't David? Or are you smarter and more business savvy then every BOD and executive in the world?

April 21, 2008 at 4:19 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

NEWS FLASH:

Fortune 1 company for 2007???


WALMART


Let the complaining about their hiring, treatment of workers, and horrible benefits plans start..... Oh wait, I'm sure it was Exxon "manipulating" their earnings so they weren't #1, how could I be so naive?

April 21, 2008 at 8:40 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Don’t waste your time trying to reason with Dave. Even he doesn’t believe the crap he posts. Heck, he wanted to kill the McDonalds execs because their burgers are bad for our health, or something equally as silly.

April 21, 2008 at 11:22 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Must have missed the replies.

Jonas, the wal-mart discussion isn't worth the time, I'm not a fan either, Spinning the issue isn't working here.

I don't believe your 'alias' claim, there's only a couple of regulars here. One more time, what's your connection? Don't come back at me with this wal-mart spin/superior education/'i make big money'/SAT scores/Penis length nonsense. Come clean and maybe I'll take you seriously.

April 22, 2008 at 8:54 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Does it really matter? What’s with the inquisition, S? You don’t grill Dave that hard for his blind militant support of Lib Socialism or his Black Candidate.

April 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Steve,

You've got it. That's it. The no spin zone would say I've posted under "Mike" before. Please go back to comments about David's so-called "consulting" work. And if an alias and username really makes the comments (lets forget the facts you propose), then how can I take you seriously with your ridiculous picture?

Why are you coming at me about my SAT scores? Remember, it was David (your buddy) who brought up his GMAT percentile first. No-spin here right Steve? My comment about SAT scores was to prove to David he wouldn't outscore me on any exam. That's the no-spin answer.

I told you my connection. I audited 20 plus years ago while fully independent. As that doesn't fit what you want, there must be a lie to my story. No-spin here right Steve? Maybe you should just say what you are alluding to in the fact that I've shot down all of Dave's ridiculous statements with true facts. Due to the knowledge base of those facts you feel I'm an insider. That would be the no-spin story, right Steve?

How am I spinning to Walmart? I've talked about Walmart for the past week (pre-earnings) and now it comes out they are Fortune #1. Exxon never made the spotlight until they were there, now lets discuss Walmart as they are there (again). That is no-spin Steve.

"Superior education." Remember Steve, those were YOUR words. I'll throw a no-spin knuckleball and say I agree. As a white male, I have to be one of the smartest in the country to get into those schools. Why should I be ashamed of that? If there is no-spin here, why don't you call out everyone who has their childs college bumper/window sticker and tell them to take it down? No-spin right?

And sorry Steve, I never brought up a penis length discussion. I'm not even going to make a joke about it as it shows the lack of anything you have said in this entire forum as that is the only thing people will remember.

Then again Steve we could go into R's statements about you never questioning Dave's ridiculous and lie-based comments about oil companies and McK. Why aren't you asking for his background? Remember Steve, David has yet to send me or provide any information proving Exxon's "gouging" which he plainly says they do in his first post. I have stated facts over and over. David blames McK for not seeing 20 years into the future with AT&T (lets not go into the fact McK doesn't provide future market positions 20 years ahead anyway) and costing AT&T money. Then when McK brings Allstate record (oh did he forget to mention that?) profits, there is another issue. With no-spin, there must be questions as to his motives. Case 1: profits are what matters. Case 2: profits aren't what matters. That is spin Steve. I've thrown out the no-spin facts about the book (which he probably didn't even read as he didn't even know the basic thesis of the story) and wikipedia stories David has used as his sources.

Steve do me a favor. Check my facts. Pull the companies 10k's and SEC filings (which are audited) and show me where I lied. Now go pull David's facts and show me where he is telling the truth (with no-spin right?).

Steve, if you haven't figured it out yet, you want accept any answer as to who I am unless I say I'm an oil exec because that's what YOU want.

April 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

lol, jonas decided to dissect my last post. Folks, I believe I got into his head.

April 22, 2008 at 9:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

oh, I almost forgot. Jonas, what's your connection?

April 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 23, 2008 at 2:31 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Steve,

Wow, so ingenious of you. Yet again, I prove everything you say wrong.

I guess it's easy to see why I went to HBS and Wharton: cause I'm better than the losers like you out there. Then again, when you're asking for welfare and social security checks, maybe I'll decide to be generous and help the idiots like you out.

April 24, 2008 at 8:47 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 25, 2008 at 2:09 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home