The Exxon/Mobile, BP, Chevron and Shell Oil executives are about to be sworn in AGAIN before a bunch of Democrats in congress to be grilled over fuel prices and what they see as obscene profits.

These four will be the only ones accused of receiving unfair "subsidies" costing the taxpayer and currently are the only companies to be penalized if the tax laws are changed and tailored specifically to punish them.

#1 Not one of these companies receives subsidies from the US government. They pay Billions not millions of taxes every year to the US Treasury. The so called "Subsidies" are legal tax write offs for expenses related to costs of operations. So the subsidy bullshit needs to be called out by these executives this morning.

#2 Profits generated from refining for these companies are minimal. Most of them are currently making the majority of their profits from their natural gas developments.

On average .07 cents per gallon profit for "Big Oil"
The government and it's fuel surcharge earns .88 cents per gallon.
The stupid grand standing Dems are the ones that need to be on trial here.

Raising taxes on the four largest oil companies will increase what you pay at the pump.So if you want higher prices at the pump, side with the Dems.

Inflation :
The index of producer prices, which measures how much manufacturers and wholesalers pay for goods and materials, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.8% in April, the Labor Department said Thursday. It followed a 0.7% rise the previous month.

These are Labor Dept. numbers mind you so bank on inflation in reality running in excess of 10% annually currently. But even their numbers show an increase.

Unemployment:
Jobless Claims Remain Elevated
Initial unemployment claims decreased by 44,000 to a seasonally adjusted 434,000 in the week ended May 7, the Labor Department said Thursday in its weekly report.

The prior week's figure was revised to 478,000 from an originally reported 474,000.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast claims would fall by 46,000.

The four-week moving average of new claims, considered a more reliable indicator because it smoothes out volatile weekly data, climbed by 4,500 to 436,750 in the week ending May 7.

Question: How many jobs will be created by raising taxes on "Big Oil"?

Seriously folks! All you guys that think Big oil needs to be punished why don't you just wad up a $10.00 bill every time you fill your tank and throw it in the trash?

We are truly a nation half full of idiots.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2011 10:26AM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The so called "Subsidies" are legal tax right offs

As in readin', rightin', and rithmatik?

> Seriously folks! All you guys that think Big oil
> needs to be punished why don't you just wad up a
> $10.00 bill every time you fill your tank and
> throw it in the trash?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.html- For the year, Exxon Mobil made $30.46 billion, or $6.22 a share, compared with $19.28 billion, or $3.98 a share, for 2009. Revenue for 2010 rose to $383 billion from $310 billion the previous year.


Oh yeah, we need to give them tax breaks to help them with their cost of operations (sniff).

Personally I don't care, when the oil prices jump I just put the dividends in the tank. But they don't need those right write-offs. Tax breaks are for industries that need some support to benefit the country. They don't need propping up.

I love how Republicans say the want to lower spending, but really want higher spending by giving these hugely-profitable companies tax breaks. How about removing those tax breaks to reduce the deficit as a condition to raise the debt ceiling?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2011 10:31AM by justsayin.

How about we produce some more of our own oil here instead of relying on everybody else!!!!! I mean, our new solution is to be Brazil's biggest customer. That is supposed to help us gain dependence on foreign oil???? Last tiem I checked, Brazil is still a foreign country. Has this administration lost its mind?

I'm listening to the testimony. It is full of bullshit. The execs keep pointing to the "we make a few cents a gallon of gasoline" bullshit. The big oil companies, drill it, refine it, and sell it to stations that they collect franchise fees from. They plead poverty in front of Congress and pat each other on the back for huge profits at shareholder meetings.

Olympia Snowe suggested the subsidies could end at over $80/barrel oil because with subsidies taken away they are profitable after $52/barrel. Sounds fair to me.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The so called "Subsidies" are legal tax right
> offs
>
> As in readin', rightin', and rithmatik?
>
> > Seriously folks! All you guys that think Big
> oil
> > needs to be punished why don't you just wad up
> a
> > $10.00 bill every time you fill your tank and
> > throw it in the trash?
> >
> > We are truly a nation half full of idiots.
>
> And some of them post garbage to
> FairfaxUnderground.com
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.h
> tml- For the year, Exxon Mobil made $30.46
> billion, or $6.22 a share, compared with $19.28
> billion, or $3.98 a share, for 2009. Revenue for
> 2010 rose to $383 billion from $310 billion the
> previous year.
>
>
> Oh yeah, we need to give them tax breaks to help
> them with their cost of operations (sniff).
>
> Personally I don't care, when the oil prices jump
> I just put the dividends in the tank. But they
> don't need those right write-offs. Tax breaks are
> for industries that need some support to benefit
> the country. They don't need propping up.
>
> I love how Republicans say the want to lower
> spending, but really want higher spending by
> giving these hugely-profitable companies tax
> breaks. How about removing those tax breaks to
> reduce the deficit as a condition to raise the
> debt ceiling?

Crap! Notice how many times I've edited this damn post? Still didn't catch it. So to punish myself I'm going to ban myself from FFXU for 24 hours and banish myself to one of the most beautiful golf courses in the country. So farewell.

Hah :) No need for that, it's just the normal forum fodder and no offense intended.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hah :) No need for that, it's just the normal
> forum fodder and no offense intended.

None taken. But I'm still playing golf. Lastly, check your 401-K and all mutual funds and make sure you don't own any "big oil". I bet you do. If that's the case you are railing against your own self interests. Kind of like the stooge that slaps himself in the head. see ya!

No I'm not, I invest in energy because of its profits and already said I personally offset higher gas prices with energy holdings moves. I have no problem reducing those positions if they become less profitable due to tax policy changes. But my main point is that they don't need those tax savings to be profitable. Good luck on the game!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2011 10:39AM by justsayin.

Same old Republican talking points! A bunch of bullshit as usual we are suppose to blindly believe. Sucks to have the internet providing actual facts doesn't it. All Republican lies exposed quickly.

Big oil is the only industry that we subsidize, give tax credits and that makes a huge profit every year. It's completely different if an industry is struggling.

The only reason we subsidize big is because of lobbyist and Congressman campaign money! PERIOD!

If you were a savvy investor you would dumped big oil stocks long ago! tech, health care and electric is where the money is now.

Producing more oil is merely a short term solution. We use about 19 billion gallons a day, we produce merely 9 million a day currently, and the current estimate is that there are 210 billion gallons in the US. (And that's including unproven reserves) So even if we managed to miraculously produce 20 billion gallons a day, it wouldn't last long.

We need to stop relying on oil.

GasHog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same old Republican talking points! A bunch of
> bullshit as usual we are suppose to blindly
> believe. Sucks to have the internet providing
> actual facts doesn't it. All Republican lies
> exposed quickly.
>
> Big oil is the only industry that we subsidize,
> give tax credits and that makes a huge profit
> every year. It's completely different if an
> industry is struggling.
>
>

Um, oil isn't the only recipient that's successful. There are plenty o Fortune 500 companies making a killing off taxpayer dollars as well.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We need to stop relying on oil.

Amen! All we are doing is polluting American air. Electric with hydroelectric and solar to produce power.

Tesla car in production and available. 0-60 in 2.8 seconds and 300 miles per charge.
Attachments:

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we produce some more of our own oil here
> instead of relying on everybody else!!!!!



LOL You really think America has enough oil reserves to meet our own demands?

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GasHog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> Um, oil isn't the only recipient that's
> successful. There are plenty o Fortune 500
> companies making a killing off taxpayer dollars as
> well.

They need to pay up too!

Amen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tesla car in production and available. 0-60 in
> 2.8 seconds and 300 miles per charge.

Yep! From only $101,500 (with $7,500 tax credit, i.e. "subsidy"). That's certainly within reach of the vast majority of Americans.

Good luck buying a Chevy Volt. They are sold out for the rest of the 2011 year. Waiting list for 2012.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question: How many jobs will be created by raising
> taxes on "Big Oil"?

"Creating jobs" is the biggest lie that has come down the pike for a while, since "making money and trickling it down" is what they really mean, and we all know how that's worked out.

GasHog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you were a savvy investor you would dumped big
> oil stocks long ago!

ORLY

XLE May 11 2010 open - 56.74
XLE May 11 2011 open - 73.90

Dividend payments during the last year - 1.049 per share.

One-year profit would be $18.21/share, or 32%. OH YEAH HOW UNSAVVY!!!!!1!!1!!!111!!!

eesh wrote

--------------------------------------------------
"LOL You really think America has enough oil reserves to meet our own demands?"


Nope, but I do think we should use some of it until all the alternative energy technology becomes more easily available. I'm all for a car that runs on electric, solar, air or whatever, but the Volt isn't exactly in abundance and I don't see any other options at the dealership either.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh wrote
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> "LOL You really think America has enough oil
> reserves to meet our own demands?"
>
>
> Nope, but I do think we should use some of it...



We are.




-
Attachments:

Oooh, all of 1 state out of 50 and not even all that the areas that we could get it from in that state. Even our Governor sent the Pres a letter recently asking him to open stuff up off of VA coasts. I'm not saying oil is the answer to all, I'm just saying use what we have here, not just a fraction of it, while the other technologies catch up.

And we are going to really tear up the environment opening up more oil wells. As far as offshore drilling near Virginia, I don't want Virginia Beach to turn into an oil slick the way it happened with BP down south.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we produce some more of our own oil here
> instead of relying on everybody else!!!!! I mean,
> our new solution is to be Brazil's biggest
> customer. That is supposed to help us gain
> dependence on foreign oil???? Last tiem I
> checked, Brazil is still a foreign country. Has
> this administration lost its mind?


How about we actually leave something for our kids and grandkids. I bet they're going to need that oil more then the $.10 a gallon its gonna reduce the price today.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oooh, all of 1 state out of 50 and not even all
> that the areas that we could get it from in that
> state. Even our Governor sent the Pres a letter
> recently asking him to open stuff up off of VA
> coasts. I'm not saying oil is the answer to all,
> I'm just saying use what we have here, not just a
> fraction of it, while the other technologies catch
> up.


It's one state, yes, but there are others. Not all have oil though, sorry. The ones that do you better believe it's being exploited.

At what point did I say I wasn't for alternative energy. As I stated earlier, I'm all for it, but I don't see a lot of alternatives at the dealership. I would prefer that we use our own stuff ratehr than buy it from OPEC, Brazil or any other country. All I hear from you guys is leave some for our kids or we will have another BP spill. The BP thing sucked, maybe if we didn't have to drill a thousand miles out to sea, we could've fixed that problem quicker than a couple of months.

So then what are your solutions. The Volt isn't the answer because it isn't readily available. What do you propose in the mean time?

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Volt isn't
> the answer because it isn't readily available.





Even if it was readily available, it wouldn't solve any problems. Electric cars are not practical at this stage of development with their short battery life. Plus, the Volt is just a passenger car, there are some people with a genuine need for large pickup trucks and SUVs.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then what are your solutions. The Volt isn't
> the answer because it isn't readily available.
> What do you propose in the mean time?


The solution won't happen overnight, and the government should have, in the meantime, a very strong interest in both promoting better efficiency and conservation, and development of new technologies. No, there is nothing "right now" that will replace oil. Oil is unsustainable and expensive and damaging in many ways though, and it is in our best interests to understand this and work towards getting away from it and reducing our use of it.

Also, we will not be free of imported oil no matter how much drilling we do here. This is just plain not a solution to the problem you are talking about.

the temporary solution is conservation. did you realize that about two thirds of energy produced in power plants is lost as waste-heat?

people make fun of switching to LED's or CFL's, but if you're interested in energy independence, that's the cheapest and fastest way to do it.

inflate your car tires properly -- at $4.09 a gallon give or take, you can get an extra 3 or 4 MPG easily. that's an easy way to use a lot less fuel.

we have enough nat gas and shale oil to last us a couple hundred years. hopefully we'll switch to something less destructive way before then.

also, i'm kind of jealous of a day of golfing, but i couldn't disagree more with the OP. call it what you want -- tax break, subsidy, corporate welfare. they're distinctions without differences. you cannot simultaneously support reducing debt and wealth transfer to oil companies.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Producing more oil is merely a short term
>
> produce 20 billion gallons a day, it wouldn't last
> long.
>
> We need to stop relying on oil.

Try it moron. First turn off your computer, strip down butt ass naked climb out of your moms basement and crawl into a cave somewhere. Otherwise shut your stupid fucking pie hole.

curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the temporary solution is conservation. did you
> realize that about two thirds of energy produced
> in power plants is lost as waste-heat?
>
> people make fun of switching to LED's or CFL's,
> but if you're interested in energy independence,
> that's the cheapest and fastest way to do it.
>
> inflate your car tires properly -- at $4.09 a
> gallon give or take, you can get an extra 3 or 4
> MPG easily. that's an easy way to use a lot less
> fuel.
>
> we have enough nat gas and shale oil to last us a
> couple hundred years. hopefully we'll switch to
> something less destructive way before then.


I liked how Obama's answer to high fuel costs was to tell everyone to inflate tires properly. Jesus fucking Christ we're a nation of morons. And also "get a tune up". What the fuck? Does he think we all drive around in 1972 LTD Broughams?

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked how Obama's answer to high fuel costs was
> to tell everyone to inflate tires properly. Jesus
> fucking Christ we're a nation of morons. And also
> "get a tune up". What the fuck? Does he think we
> all drive around in 1972 LTD Broughams?

If you weren't such a knee-jerk unthinking Obama-hater-no-matter-what idiot you would have looked into it and seen the ridiculous savings from those two trivial steps:

>>> "...So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they
>>> do. I don't understand it! They’re going around, they're sending like little
>>> tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy
>>> plan.'
>>>
>>> Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is,
>>> but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says
>>> would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like
>>> these guys take pride in being ignorant..."

curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> also, i'm kind of jealous of a day of golfing, but
> i couldn't disagree more with the OP. call it
> what you want -- tax break, subsidy, corporate
> welfare. they're distinctions without
> differences. you cannot simultaneously support
> reducing debt and wealth transfer to oil
> companies.


This is the point that Macky and his crowd cannot grasp or won't admit. Welfare is welfare, whether we are talking about money being paid to single moms or money flowing to businesses in the form of tax benefits, subsidies, etc. If you are concerned about ballooning government spending and growing debts then YOU MUST cut off the flow entirely. If on the other hand you take the position that some forms of welfare is permissible because of the benefits it brings to society you must then be prepared to accept that people are going to view the worth of those benefits to society differently.

sqeesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we actually leave something for our kids
> and grandkids. I bet they're going to need that
> oil more then the $.10 a gallon its gonna reduce
> the price today.

If they are too busy throwing food fights and losing prom to learn some science and such, and they don't have flying cars that run on seawater by then, they don't deserve the oil.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > also, i'm kind of jealous of a day of golfing,
> but
> > i couldn't disagree more with the OP. call it
> > what you want -- tax break, subsidy, corporate
> > welfare. they're distinctions without
> > differences. you cannot simultaneously support
> > reducing debt and wealth transfer to oil
> > companies.
>
>
> This is the point that Macky and his crowd cannot
> grasp or won't admit. Welfare is welfare, whether
> we are talking about money being paid to single
> moms or money flowing to businesses in the form of
> tax benefits, subsidies, etc. If you are
> concerned about ballooning government spending and
> growing debts then YOU MUST cut off the flow
> entirely. If on the other hand you take the
> position that some forms of welfare is permissible
> because of the benefits it brings to society you
> must then be prepared to accept that people are
> going to view the worth of those benefits to
> society differently.


Bill you are just an idiot. " money flowing to businesses in the form of
> tax benefits"?

We are talking about money flowing from business to the Federal Treasury. Not the other way around. Not taking peoples or companies money is not giving them money. This is a perfect example of how God damn stupid people are these days. Who the fuck do you think you're fooling Bill? Not taking peoples money is not wealth transfer.

That's like the bank robber telling the judge he was giving the bank money not taking it. maybe you need to quit your government "make work" job and get a real education Bill. You're really looking and sounding like a fool

And oh yea Bill... one more thing. Since I haven't robbed you yet...you are on welfare.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 05:49PM by mcsmack.

Macky-You are being disingenuous. The difference between 1) collecting $100k from a taxpayer and then turning around and giving the taxpayer $100k as a subsidy and 2) imposing a tax that would ordinarily result in the business paying $100k in taxes but then giving them a special credit or deduction that offsets that $100k liability is one of form rather than substance. To cite a nonbusiness example, employees are usually required to have social security taxes withheld from their wages, but many low income taxpayers have this tax partially offset by the earned income tax credit. Now would it make a damn bit of difference financially to these employees if instead of giving them a tax credit we instead sent them welfare checks each month? Of course not. Either way that low income taxpayer will end up in the same financial condition. The fact that one welfare program is managed through the tax code and the other would be managed through a separate welfare agency is, except for administration costs, financially irrelevant. The same applies except in your world to corporate credits and deductions. Welfare that is administered through the tax code is still welfare.

Since you are so hyped up on robbery consider this. Everything that the government spends has to be paid for. It can be paid for by selling off government assets, by current taxes collected from taxpayers or from borrowings, which I think we both agree is simply a tax on future taxpayers. If you extend a special deduction or credit to a taxpayer or small group of taxpayers that really results in a re-allocation of the costs of government either to the remaining taxpayers or to the future taxpayers. So what is happening here is that the government is coming in and saying we don't think you gave the oil companies enough money when you bought their product so we are going to have you pay their taxes too. Now that is creative robbery. No wonder they pay their lobbyists so well.

Its the same old story. The oil industry does this every year and the politicians (both parties) bend over and take it. Then the public complaines, the politicians have these meetings and start committees that never accomplish anything. Then after Memorial Day, the prices go down (somewhat) and we get used to the new "Norm" for the prices of gas.

This is our problem...
Attachments:

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macky-You are being disingenuous. The difference
> between 1) collecting $100k from a taxpayer and
> then turning around and giving the taxpayer $100k
> as a subsidy and 2) imposing a tax that would
> ordinarily result in the business paying $100k in
> taxes but then giving them a special credit or
> deduction that offsets that $100k liability is one
> of form rather than substance. To cite a
> nonbusiness example, employees are usually
> required to have social security taxes withheld
> from their wages, but many low income taxpayers
> have this tax partially offset by the earned
> income tax credit. Now would it make a damn bit
> of difference financially to these employees if
> instead of giving them a tax credit we instead
> sent them welfare checks each month? Of course
> not. Either way that low income taxpayer will end
> up in the same financial condition. The fact that
> one welfare program is managed through the tax
> code and the other would be managed through a
> separate welfare agency is, except for
> administration costs, financially irrelevant. The
> same applies except in your world to corporate
> credits and deductions. Welfare that is
> administered through the tax code is still
> welfare.
>
> Since you are so hyped up on robbery consider
> this. Everything that the government spends has
> to be paid for. It can be paid for by selling off
> government assets, by current taxes collected from
> taxpayers or from borrowings, which I think we
> both agree is simply a tax on future taxpayers.
> If you extend a special deduction or credit to a
> taxpayer or small group of taxpayers that really
> results in a re-allocation of the costs of
> government either to the remaining taxpayers or to
> the future taxpayers. So what is happening here
> is that the government is coming in and saying we
> don't think you gave the oil companies enough
> money when you bought their product so we are
> going to have you pay their taxes too. Now that
> is creative robbery. No wonder they pay their
> lobbyists so well.


The problem is Bill the "big four" pay a hell of a lot more in taxes then you can imagine. The government already rakes .88 cents per gallon. The average profit for "big oil" is .07 cents per gallon. tell me Bill, when is the government going to "sacrifice"?

Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid in 2006.



By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]

This includes your fake "subsidies" Bill. So what's another $4 billion you ask?

Other than the fact it is immoral and will be past on to you at the pump, nothing.

And I'll tell you another fact you don't know Bill N. These corporations pay more in taxes than they do in in income. I wonder how many private sector jobs that destroys?

And being disingenuous is saying that these American companies are on corporate welfare when that is a flat out lie. The conglomerate on welfare is the huge contingent of public sector employees who have glommed onto honest peoples money for far to long. 30% of whom should be fired. Unessentials. Which I'm positive you are among them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 03:31PM by mcsmack.

So nice of you to keep me informed about how little I know, Macky. It's a wonder I made it this far in life. Perhaps you could provide me with something a little more informative.

To begin with I would suggest starting with how much oil companies actually pay in U.S. income taxes and how much they save due to deductions and credits extended only to oil companies. Exxon's embarrassment about its 2009 income tax bill being $0 was apparently overdone, but so was their claim that they paid more in taxes in the United States than they made in profit that year. As I understand it the latter number included Federal and state fuel and state and local sales taxes that they are required to collect from consumers and pay over, and also the employment taxes that they withhold from employee pay, in addition to corporate income taxes and other taxes levied against the company itself. Nice PR but highly misleading. If we added together corporate income taxes, sales taxes, business gross receipts taxes and employment taxes that our company is required to pay over to various governments we could make the same claim. My understanding is that Exxon's effective Federal income tax rate usually runs about 25-30%. How does that compare with your info?

Now if you will excuse me I have to get back to doing nothing but walk around a nicely planted field. Oh wait, that's you.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So nice of you to keep me informed about how
> little I know, Macky. It's a wonder I made it
> this far in life. Perhaps you could provide me
> with something a little more informative.
>
> To begin with I would suggest starting with how
> much oil companies actually pay in U.S. income
> taxes and how much they save due to deductions and
> credits extended only to oil companies. Exxon's
> embarrassment about its 2009 income tax bill being
> $0 was apparently overdone

Exxon's embarrassment? What about yours Bill?

Sure Bill. "it was overdone". Nice freeking way to say it was a flat out lie Bill.

But hell just admit your info is all fucked up then forge ahead anyway trashing "big oil" since that fits your agenda.

This crap started with an idiot reporter CHRISTOPHER HELMAN from Forbes. Of course the morons retraction didn't get near the press the initial release citing the tax charge. People exactly like you just ate it up as usual only to find out later it was an excrement sandwich.

But hell Bill since when do you let the facts get in the way of your Liberal agenda.

But to set the record straight here is your ol' buddy Chris's retraction

"Recently we published the story “What the Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes,” and a related blog post, “Big Oil’s Tax Bill.” What’s received the most attention from readers and bloggers was our assertion that ExxonMobil, despite recording more than $15 billion in income taxes, “paid none of its 2009 income taxes in the U.S.”

"Although I came up with that by reading the company’s annual 10-k filing with the SEC, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers assures me that this is wrong, that Exxon did indeed pay substantial income taxes to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, and that it overpaid taxes in 2008. How much? Well, Jeffers says so far he’s not at liberty to disclose that information. “That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we.”

So what gives? Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and “do not represent our tax bill,” which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k “is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was,” says Jeffers.

What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil “recorded” no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of “paid.” All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa."

Genius Chris Helman

Sorry to keep making you my Bitch Bill but the liberal mindset is too easy to unwire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 05:22PM by mcsmack.

Oh and just a few more facts to frost you Bill.



"Did you know that 52 percent of Exxon is owned by mutual funds, index funds, and pension funds?" No?...Do you know that about 2 million individuals own Exxon stock or that company insiders hold less than 1 percent of the company?

See Bill oil is part of my business. I know people at Exxon from geologists and even one gal in their environmental engineering office. My part is with the pipeline underground construction but I've been involved and damn sure know what i'm talking about. Bank on it Bill. If I say it, it's fact. Accept that and you'll stop looking so foolish.

Oh and Bill? Suggestion.... Drop your Mother Jones subscription and buy a real newspaper, Like the WJS. You'll be a better man for it.

Oh and one more thing Bill. There is a company that paid 0 taxes last year. They get a lot of real subsidies for wind power and what not. And their CEO sits at your ol' Buddy Obama's right hand. Ever here of Jeffery Imelt? And a little company named GE?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 05:52PM by mcsmack.

Mr. Politics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is our problem...

I don't know who came up with this stupid fucking addicted to oil bullshit but it's juvenile.And of course people repeat it just like the stupid ass parrots they are. People don't even stop to think what they're saying or judge whether it even makes any sense.

You ain't addicted to jack fucking squat. Look up the definition of addiction. No ones forcing you to use oil. you can live without it. Everything that has made your life comfortable will have to go right down to the shoes off your feet. Everything in one way or the other food, shelter, medicine, health care and clothing EVERYTHING is here thanks to big oil. You would think people would be grateful for oil. But fuck no. We are a nation full of thankless, spoiled brats with a great sense of entitlement expecting all their fine shit to be on the shelf when they go to buy it. Well it's not fucking magic people. I have never witnessed such a rude and fucked up group of people then the ones who rail against big oil. i just want to hit them in the head with a hammer and tell them to wise the fuck up. These stupid fucks are idiots who have absolutely no grasp on reality.

Either go live in a fucking cave and club animals or shut the god damn hell up.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Exxon/Mobile, BP, Chevron and Shell Oil
> executives are about to be sworn in AGAIN before a
> bunch of Democrats in congress to be grilled over
> fuel prices and what they see as obscene profits.
>
> These four will be the only ones accused of
> receiving unfair "subsidies" costing the taxpayer
> and currently are the only companies to be
> penalized if the tax laws are changed and tailored
> specifically to punish them.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the year, Exxon Mobil made $30.46
> billion, or $6.22 a share, compared with $19.28
> billion, or $3.98 a share, for 2009. Revenue for
> 2010 rose to $383 billion from $310 billion the
> previous year.
>
> Oh yeah, we need to give them tax breaks to help
> them with their cost of operations (sniff).


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."