October 30, 2008

"The incumbent president has approval ratings somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the ebola virus."

"The economy is supposedly on the brink of global Armageddon. McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama's burning through $600 mil as fast as he can, and he doesn't really need to spend a dime given the wall-to-wall media adoration.. . . And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange."

Mark Steyn observes. It is puzzling, isn't it?

(Via Instapundit.)

153 comments:

former law student said...

McCain is doubling his money by including slams in his ads at the likes of Nancy Pelosi, which qualifies him to spend RNC congressional campaign funds.

Jeff said...

Not so puzzling... God damn racists!

ricpic said...

Obama is cold. He's an icicle. So with the exception of blacks and marxist perfessers he can't close the deal.

Paavo said...

Not puzzling at all. It's in the interests of the media and pollsters to present a closer election than you'd expect. Tighter race = more eyeballs.

Barack still wins the national popular vote by at least 6 points.

Revenant said...

McCain is doubling his money by including slams in his ads at the likes of Nancy Pelosi, which qualifies him to spend RNC congressional campaign funds.

Whereas Obama's ads never contain attacks on, say, George Bush...

chuck b. said...

I voted for McCain/Palin. It was like getting a tooth pulled, but I did it. I don't think McCain would be good for this country but I have more reason to believe Obama would be worse. I almost voted for the Libertarian ticket, but that would have been chickening out.

It was all very dramatic of me at my kitchen table with my vote-by-mail ballot. And totally meaningless...Obama will take California by a landslide.

Rose said...

It is because McCain IS a GOOD man.

They're rare in politics.

Arturius said...

I'm not quite sure why this is so puzzling. Anyone who was paying attention to the 2004 election saw that as the Democrat's mulligan for Bush stealing 2000 and not only could they not close the deal but Bush wins by 3 million votes. I distinctly recall Susan Estridge being interviewed and grinning ear to ear midway through the counts showing Kerry ahead stating that Bush was toast and could never come back. I suspect she was on a bender for a month after the final tally was in.

One thing to keep in mind is that the country and the economy is in uncharted waters for a good chunk of the electorate who don't remember the Great Depression, Vietnam or even the years of 'malaise' and may not trust a completely untested candidate to navigate us out of this mess. I suspect that issue is on the minds of more than a few undecideds.

Buford Gooch said...

Interesting that the weighting of polls averages an eight point Democrat advantage, while the Republicans' worst year in decades (2006)showed only about a 3 point advantage for the Democrats.

Richard Fagin said...

Not puzzling at all. The Dems aren't fielding a Scoop Jackson or Sam Nunn, after all. Heck, not even a Lloyd Bentsen. Then it would be a blowout.

Obama doesn't look all that unusual from Hyde Park, Cambridge or Madison. From Houston he looks like 1979 vintage Daniel Ortega (although he doesn't speak Spanish as does the "buffoonish" President Bush).

JAL said...

Not to dis Steyn's point or facts, but the Democrat congress has an approval rating of a cockroach --- lower than the Ebola virus and the current president.

And people want to elect one of them? Maybe that's the first clue.

How many votes can $600 million buy when used by a liar who said he would take the campaign limits enacted to "reform," change, and make "fair" the election process?

There is a limit, one hopes.

(Does this give anyone {Ann?} a clue about what Obama's definition of "fair" and "honest" is?)

Don't get stained in your cruelty.

Arturius said...

(Does this give anyone {Ann?} a clue about what Obama's definition of "fair" and "honest" is?)

It certainly is a good indicator that his administration will be based upon what benefits Obama and not necessarily the nation.

UWS guy said...

I'd prefer to say that the Republican brand is so battered that a black-muslim-communist can win the presidency of the united states just because he doesn't have an (R) after his name.

Randy said...

It is puzzling, isn't it?

No, it isn't.

jprapp said...

JAL (1:08) - "There is a limit, one hopes."

“There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
Theres too much confusion
I cant get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth ...” ~ Hendrix.


Here's to hope looking both ways:

ebola has a job to do,
with cockroaches when we’re gone,
the bottomless pit is bottomless,
and jokers and thieves a song ...

Methadras said...

ricpic said...

Obama is cold. He's an icicle. So with the exception of blacks and marxist perfessers he can't close the deal.


He's a humorless dick who surrounded himself with other serious humorless dicks.

Methadras said...

former law student said...

McCain is doubling his money by including slams in his ads at the likes of Nancy Pelosi, which qualifies him to spend RNC congressional campaign funds.


This type of propagandist fog is why you would rather defend a malignant fraud and his cadre of other frauds by pointing out that McCain is attacking the axis of taxers that Mr. Barely wants to form and work with.

AlphaLiberal said...

Actually, this is a typical media meme that is happily fading: News is always bad for the Democrat and good for the Republican Party.

On a liberal blog this post would have had the de rigeur snark: "It's always bad for the Democrats!"

rcocean said...

WHY? Because its a Center-Right country thats voting Obama to get rid of the Republicans. We're tired of their screw-ups. Its "throw the bums out" time.

What has Bush done in the last 4 years except continue an unpopular war, pass a 700 billion Wall Street Bailout, try to jam an Amnesty bill down America's throat, and run huge deficits?

No one outside of his left-wing base and AA has any enthusiasm for Obama, - let alone his liberalism. So, the election is close.

Big Mike said...

My own sense is that Barack Obama has the most enthusiastic supporters, but that once you are away from his core (which might be as much as 20-25% of the electorate so not to sneeze at) the level of enthusiasm drops off so fast it almost resembles a step function. McCain is appealing to the undecideds and those whose support for Obama isn't that deep or enthusiastic. It might just be working.

I think that McCain is helped by the blatant MSM bias and by the widespread preception that Obama is accepting illegal campaign contributions. My sense, from talking with people on the street, is that a backlash is building. It may not be enough, or in time, but I think that Obama's "honeymoon" with the public, assuming that he does win, will be brief and unhappy. Ask George Dubya Bush (or call up Dick Nixon at a seance) to find out what it's like to be President with only 25% approval ratings.

Host with the Most said...

It's all about values, baby!

The coastal elites - having very few moral values they won't willingly compromise - can't imagine anyone in America seeing it any other way: Obama Good / Republican/McCain Bad.

Yesterday, I was stunned to hear my next door, in-their-50's, African-American neighbors - who are already Democrats - openly wish that the Democrat nominee was a more experienced, less leftist African-American Democrat. They said Obama should serve a little longer in the Senate, and - this is the quote - "Michele should put some meat on his skinny ass".

He might win, but MOST Obama voters - like Ann Althouse - will be doing so with their fingers crossed and a quick prayer of "God, don't let this guy screw up!"

Bob said...

I sense we increasing hate our Presidents and have started to do so at an earlier point in their term. Not disapprove, but hate. The Right hated Clinton by the end. The Left hates Bush. Now I sense that no matter who is elected a full third of US voters will hate the newly elected president. That just does not feel like a good long-term condition for the Republic.

We are beginning to look a lot like the Middle East. The moderates are being killed off and two armed camps (in our case arms means money and media) face off. Reaching across the aisle is seen as weak and a betrayal. The 1/3 of voters who are independent are mowed down in the crossfire of the zealots.

Quayle said...

We are beginning to look like a very prideful people that want to win more than we want to find truth and find common ground.

Everything devolves into a stuggle for me, my party, my group, my religion, my opinion, my self-worth, my status, my wealth, my recognition.

Nobody can work together because they think it moves them down in the struggle. Everyone wants to move up and the other guy to move down.

One can never help someone else go higher. One can never attribute a strength or good idea to someone else.

Pride remakes every single issue into a question of whether something make me go up compared to the "other", or down.

Besides that major trend in our country, things seem to be going fine.

Arturius said...

Yesterday, I was stunned to hear my next door, in-their-50's, African-American neighbors - who are already Democrats - openly wish that the Democrat nominee was a more experienced, less leftist African-American Democrat.

The irony of it all is that a Kerry administration on 04 actually may not have been a bad thing considering Obama looks like he may actually pull this off.

Crimso said...

I'd like to meet these people who approve of the Ebola virus. On second thought, maybe not.

Joking aside, I wonder how many people who ascribe to "throw the bums out" will vote Dem for POTUS, but Repub for House and (if applicable) Senate, regardless of their self-professed party allegiance. I'm betting the number is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

mccullough said...

A war hero vs. a law school teacher?

I have no idea why people would vote for a war hero over a law school teacher for POTUS.

And since McCain's favorable ratings are way higher than W.'s are, I guess the would-be voters aren't as dumb as the law school teacher thinks they are.

JAL said...

IIRC, Unemployment in North Carolina was at quite comfortably low low until 2006 when the Dems took control of Congress.

Bush (and McCain) tried to put a fix in even before that on the mess that has become Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress squashed it because the Dems didn't like to mess with Frank & Co.

Some folks act like the President writes the laws or something. He's the CiC and executive, remember? (Oh yeah, things BO doesn't know much about.)

AlphaLiberal said...

Ugh. Flagging this in a tangentially related thread:

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

Hat tip, Atrios.

JAL said...

Make that one "low."

AlphaLiberal said...

Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head.

Just a thought.

nrn312 said...

Intrade still has McCain at 5-1, so feel free to put your money where your mouth is if you think it's so close! I think the market is trying to tell you something.

nrn312 said...

"Some folks act like the President writes the laws or something."

He certainly signs them unless his veto is overridden. The propaganda line you are using is at least 20 years old.

integrity said...

There are a myriad of reasons, although according to the polls(which I question in any direction) Obama is ahead by about 6. Steyn is citing the Fox poll from this morning. Even right-wing Rasmussen does not show it that close.

The most important reason being that McCain really does dislike the right-wingers in his party, and has been quite open about it in the past. This creates great affection for him with moderates and democrats. I used to be a fan as well.

integrity said...

I hope Steyn is not under the impression that McCain would deal with people like him if he didn't need their votes.

Michael said...

First of all, who says McCain is within 2 or 3 points?

Here's George Will's take on big John:

From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days.

Will calls out McCain for his "history of reducing controversies to cartoons," and then, with a flourish, all but throws McCain's legacy under the bus:

McCain revived a familiar villain -- "huge amounts" of political money -- when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. "The dam is broken," said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates -- people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September.


Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers.

*The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

Michael said...

Alpha: "Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head."

You can't possibly be directing that hope at this crowd.

Most here can't wait to start whining about anything and everything.

*Of course, in a few years, after we have national health care, they'll ALL wonder what took so long.

Michael said...

The industry John McCain thinks needs 3 billion in "tax relief":

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier.

Disgusting.

X said...

Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head.


I'll give him as long as the last guy got. When did they start saying Bush was putting arsenic in water?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier.

Disgusting.


Not if you own XOM. :-) as many people do.

Bart DePalma said...

Why is this surprising?

For the past three election cycles, the Dem candidates have routinely ended up between 48%-49% no matter how many more Dems voted than GOP.

No Dem candidate has broken 50% since Carter did so by a hair after Watergate.

The last elections the Dems offered a candidate even remotely this liberal were the 84 and 88 GOP landslides.

Obama was trailing until the stock market went into a tail spin. Economic fear (and media polls grossly over counting of Dems over GOP voters by up to 15%) are the only reasons Obama has obtained a lead.

However, the markets have stabilized and the story of Obama telling Joe the Plumber that he will raise is taxes and "spread the wealth around" has been heard by over 80% of voters. Thus, the second thoughts and substantial tightening in the historically reliable likely voter polls.

Neither candidate's committed voters are providing them with a majority of the vote. The question that will not be answered until next Tuesday is which way the inordinately large block of undecided will break

Of interest for those pondering this question should be the Bradley Effect during the 2006 election cycle in the five statewide biracial elections. In all of these contests, the undecided voters in the polling were inordinately large. However, on election day, the undecided broke for the white candidate by an average of over 2:1, and in all but one race by an average of over 4:1.

We have already seen a substantial Bradley Effect during the Dem primaries.

If the undecided break for McCain at a 2:1 or more, he wins this contest.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head.

Turn about is fair play. I say we remove all the "O"s from the keyboards as they did the "W"s before Bush took office.

It's a lot harder to type without an O than it is a W.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

It took that old Red-Baiter Nixon to open relations with China. A pro-communist like McGovern could never have done that.

Someone else pointed out many years ago that America's first woman President would be a conservative, not a liberal. Same reason.

America is ready for a 'black' president ... maybe even hungers for one. This election is close because a crypto-marxist like Obama, if elected, will set race relations in this country back by a generation.

Steele, Watts, or even Rice could get it done, and would be the source of celebration for generations. If, in contrast, some depressed, neo-marxist political hack out of the Chicago machine does happen to win -- especially in times like these -- the long-term backlash will be significant.

"Black" Americans deserve a far better standard bearer than Obama.

Michael said...

Bunny: "Not if you own XOM. :-) as many people do."

But not as many who have to buy gasoline or work for businesses that are dependent upon oil prices.

Why do you always rely on the most specious of arguments? You act as if the company is making money for their investors...it doesn't matter that they're, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than war profiteers.

You DO remember the wars we're fighting...don't you?

mccullough said...

Michael,

George Will is a Cubs fan so he is a loser with poor taste.


As for ExxonMobil, they employ about 40,000 people in the U.S. So those people can send their kids to schools, buy groceries, buy cars, purchase health care, etc.

In other words, they're a vital part of the economy.

While you and the rest of Obama's supporters can live and breathe on hope and change, other people have to work for a living.

mcg said...

You're an idiot, Michael. You know damn well McCain isn't looking to give oil companies a tax break. he's looking to give companies of all kinds a tax break.

Furthermore, Exxon paid 11.3 billion dollars in income taxes the same quarter they made that profit. In other words, their before-tax profit was $26 billion, and taxes ate away about 45% of it. What tax rate is fair, Michael? Are you willing to voluntarily donate 45% of your income to the government, or shall I just send some IRS jackboots over to take it from you?

Oh, but we're not done. They also paid 9.3 billion in sales taxes, and another 11.9 billion in "other taxes". Total tax bill: 32.5 billion dollars, or a full 2.19 times their net income.

But WAAAAH, they're not paying their fair share.

EDH said...

Reading Michael (above) tells you all you need to know about why it's still close.

BTW, Bob Dylan wrote All Along the Watchtower, not Hendrix.

Quayle said...

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion...Disgusting.

It honestly is not disgusting, except when you want to stir up political support among people that don't fully understand our free markets.

Point 1 - It isn't disgusting to the employees of Exxon Mobile that continue to have job security.

Point 2 - It isn't disgusting to the future employees that XOM hires to grow the business.

Point 3 - It isn't disgusting to the many retirement funds that hold XOM stock - retirement funds that include unions, teachers, blue-collar workers.

Point 4 - I thought that it was considered bad when the economy is bad and companies are suffering. Here is one that isn't suffering; why are we unhappy?

Point 5 - CEOs taking home $500M packages is disgusting, but companies making profit is good for America.

Point 6 - You want to tax corporations more? How many jobs are you willing to lose to do it? How many companies are you willing to chase overseas, or prevent from moving to the US to do it?

Point 7 - So, I get it. We want the average citizen to do well, and not be suffering, but we expect that to happen in an environment where our corporations ARE suffering?

This is the complete lie of the Obama economic plan. Tax companies that provide jobs, which thows people out of work. Then give the newly unemployed people $0.50 of what they would have made if the job hadn't been taxed out of existance.

Sorry, but you really hit a pent up frustration with the stupidity of this election dialogue.

walter neff said...

"Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head."

I think that President Obama would deserve all the sympathy and consideration and circumspection that was afforded Sarah Palin’s family and disabled child within minutes of her being selected as Vice Presidential nominee. The level of bile spewn by people like Alphaliberal and Michael in this election will serve as our guide. What goes around comes around.

mccullough said...

Quayle,

Michael doesn't care about economic growth or jobs.

He just wants what Obama wants: Things to be FAIR.

SteveR said...

Yeah citing George Will doesn't do a whole lot to shake up conservatives. What's next David Gergen? Ohh!

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Gas is under 2.00 a gallon in West TN now. Just thought I'd throw that out there for you folks that live in California or New England.

Simon said...

Michael, you've been asked to leave; that didn't mean "leave for now." It meant leave.

AlphaLiberal said...
"Ugh. Flagging this in a tangentially related thread...."

It isn't related, and if you read the article it's perfectly clear why she was ejected: she had a reputation as a troublemaker, and her carefully parsed answer - not "I wasn't going to do anything" but "I hadn't done anything yet" confirms the judgment of the cops.

AlphaLiberal said...
"Well, I hope that the next President can get a few months start before the other side starts trying to lop off his head."

He's not even going to get a few minutes, let alone a few months.

Bob said...
"I sense we increasing hate our Presidents and have started to do so at an earlier point in their term. Not disapprove, but hate."

Yep.

Crimso said...

"But not as many who have to buy gasoline or work for businesses that are dependent upon oil prices."

You probably also think that farmers set grain prices...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

"But not as many who have to buy gasoline or work for businesses that are dependent upon oil prices."XOM doesn't set the world spot market oil prices or the futures prices.

You act as if the company is making money for their investors

Sure they are. They have increased dividends every year since 2003. A share bought early in the year of 2003 at approx $36.00 is generating a dividend of .40 average per quarter so far this year for a yield of approx 4.4% on your $36 dollar investment. Not bad return.

In addition that $36 stock is about $73 today.

I would say that is making money for investors.

Michael said...

mcg, No, McCain is supporting a tax break for the oil companies of up to 3 billion.

The True Cost of McCain's Oil Industry Subsidies for Every State

By Ben Furnas, Daniel J. Weiss
August 11, 2008

If elected president, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would provide $39 billion in federal help for oil and gas companies over the next five years. Some of these subsidies already exist: McCain supports the continuation of many of the current subsidies, which will total $33 billion over the next five years according to a study by Friends of the Earth, "Big Oil, Bigger Giveaways."

While McCain would repeal some of these subsidies, he would also pass a corporate tax cut that would be worth more than $22 billion to America's five largest oil companies over the next five years.

As for Quayle's point that Exxon's profits aren't "disgusting": Only if you think a major American corporation should be making massive profits while we're fighting two wars in the Mideast, and they know OIL is a primary ingredient for our ability to do so.

Oh, and of course, he evidently doesn't mind paying through the nose at the pump either.

Simon said...

walter neff said...
"I think that President Obama would deserve all the sympathy and consideration and circumspection that was afforded Sarah Palin’s family and disabled child within minutes of her being selected as Vice Presidential nominee."

Even I wouldn't go that far. But it should be kept in mind by the left that they've already set the hockey precedent: as long as you're going for the puck, there's no such thing as unnecessary roughness. I really hope it doesn't become necessary to invoke that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

While McCain would repeal some of these subsidies, he would also pass a corporate tax cut that would be worth more than $22 billion to America's five largest oil companies over the next five years


Yay.. more profits to pass through to investors and bring the stock prices even higher so the S&P 5oo index can go up.

Yay. More retained earnings to be able to do more development and exploration to create more supply to further lower the prices to the consumer.

Yay. More jobs!!! More income to be taxed. More income to be spent to create even more jobs.

Wow. What a horrible thing. Sure hope it doesn't happen

Synova said...

You know... I think it really burns some people that we're fighting two wars and we're NOT miserable.

We're supposed to be miserable! Dang it, anyhow!

How dare we not be miserable!

Quayle said...

BTW, where is the flood of newly mined information about the people that appeared on Obama's informercial?

Where are the reports of illegal use of government databases to extract anything available that might be damaging to them?

Where is the flood of impeaching evidence by the press. Things like: Do they ever gambled? Do they smoke (very expensive) Did they work hard in school, or just hang out in the local malt shop? How many times have they been divorced (a real financial wrecker.)

Where is all the dirt on these people that the left always seems to find when it is a conservative in that position?

Why isn't the press doing its job, as it did when Joe the Plumber sprang onto the scene?

mcg said...

Again, Michael, you let me know what your address i and I'll send the IRS over to your house to make sure that they take 45% of your income home.

Their profit margin was less than 11%. The only people who think that is obscene are unserious idiots like you.

EDH said...

When did they start saying Bush was putting arsenic in water?

March 20, 2001. Good memory! I almost forgot about that regulatory turd Clinton dropped on the next administration, and "poison in the well" slander it enabled.

People tend to think Bush had a honeymoon until Iraq.

Michael said...

Bunny, You don't even know who can join your organization so why would anyone trust your ability to understand business?

If you think Exxon deserves to make this kind of money during the situations we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the economy as it is, that's your prerogative, but to me it seems, dare I say it?

Un-American.

Synova said...

So...

I figured Obama would have to be on with nuclear power. I figured that the "green" movement had finally matured to rationality and would be pushing nuclear power. I figured that we were serious about reducing our need for foreign oil and Obama would, by necessity, be on for nuclear power.

He hasn't actually said he'll support it, has he.

Methadras said...

Michael said...

The industry John McCain thinks needs 3 billion in "tax relief":

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier.

Disgusting.


Who do you think is benefiting from that profit margin? Stockholders and executives? Why do you have a problem with people or companies that make a profit on the risk(s) they take in running a company and being responsible to their shareholders? Do you know the general make-up of the shareholders of Exxon-Mobile? It's people like me who owns it in their IRA or 401k's including teachers, unions, nurses, firemen, policemen, and any number of average blue-collared americans who own this stock and in some cases not realize it.

But then again, a meandering intellectual troglodyte fire-starter like you wouldn't understand the first thing about risk-benefit in business now would you? You are like one of those little pussy kids who cries like a girl that little bobby won't share his toy with you, so you pitch a fit until your mommy comes around and asks little bobby to share with you until you shut the fuck up. Your mommy is the government and you hate what other people have attained through their own sweat equity and risk taking, and you cry like the little bitch that you are and project your disgust and hatred at them because they actually do real work that produces real wealth. While you produce nothing but misery and vapor. You are a parasite.

mcg said...

How much money should any company be allowed to make now, Michael? Is a 10% margin OK? 8%? 5%? What's the number?

No. What is un-American is your obvious relish for confiscation. You and Hugo Chavez should get along fine.

Synova said...

Their profit margin was less than 11%. The only people who think that is obscene are unserious idiots like you.

Hey, did you hear it? Capitalism is Un-American.

An 11% profit is Un-American.

Not being utterly miserable is Un-American.

walter neff said...

Michael is Bill O'Reilly?

Michael said...

mcg, Why not send over a breakout of what Exxon paid in taxes.

Now, that would be interesting, considering about 65% of American corporations pay absolutely NOTHING.

I bet you didn't know that either.

mcg said...

What's un-American is you keeping more than 55% of your adjusted gross income, Michael. Fork it over.

mcg said...

Are you calling me a liar, Michael? Do you think I'm lying about the 11.8 billion figure?

Then fuck you. Go find the quarterly statement yourself. It's not hard. Well, for normal people at least.

Crimso said...

"If you think Exxon deserves to make this kind of money during the situations we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the economy as it is, that's your prerogative, but to me it seems, dare I say it?

Un-American."

So if, say Blockbuster or McDonald's or Microsoft had similar profit margins under the same conditions (and I have no idea if any of those particular entities did, but certainly somebody other than BIG OIL did) you would be as horrified by it? I call shit from the ass of a bull on this one.

Roger J. said...

When people do not understand the distinction between gross income versus profit then I doubt they will be capable of finding, let alone reading and understanding basic financials such as assets and liabilities and statements of P and L.

Michael said...

When we invaded Iraq, Exxon stock was at about $35.

Today, after fighting the "War On Terrorism" for over five years, after losing over 4,000 Americans and having over 30,000 wounded...Exxon sells for about $75.

That's called "war profiteering" and I can't believe many here see it as nothing more than a company getting their just rewards.

Synova said...

McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama's burning through $600 mil as fast as he can,

Since we're talking about rolling in money.

Justin said...

mcg said...

You're an idiot, Michael.

Everyone says they hate trolls, yet they keep feeding them. If you don't feed them, they'll go away.

Personally, I like trolls. They're entertaining. Sometimes I skim threads looking for Lucky's spew.

I know, I'm weird.

Synova said...

So if, say Blockbuster or McDonald's or Microsoft had similar profit margins under the same conditions (and I have no idea if any of those particular entities did, but certainly somebody other than BIG OIL did) you would be as horrified by it? I call shit from the ass of a bull on this one.

I disagree.

I think that the argument of "war profiteering" is incidental to the foundational belief, on his part, that huge corporations are evil and profits are bad.

I doubt Blockbuster is doing well (hey, Netflix), but McDonalds... they prey on the poor in poor neighborhoods, feeding them way too many calories and making them all fat for such low prices that they don't buy more expensive, healthier food. It might not be war profiteering but it's certainly immoral, don't 'ya know.

Crimso said...

"That's called "war profiteering" and I can't believe many here see it as nothing more than a company getting their just rewards."

And when we invaded Iraq Obama was comparatively speaking a nobody. Now he's not just a worldwide celebrity but the Kwisatz Haderach. He therefore must be a "war profiteer." And an even bigger one than BIG OIL.

Jen Bradford said...

mcg - I sort of doubt michael has an income, so you may need to revise your offer.

This argument reminds me of the one where people say America is so "stingy" and cite percentages of government aid compared with other developed countries. When you mention the billions given by American individuals (never mind corporations), you just get a shrug.

mcg said...

You're not that weird, Justin. I get a sort of perverse satisfaction seeing Michael expose himself as a numbskull.

Justin said...

mcg said...

You're not that weird, Justin.

It's nice to know I'm not alone.

Synova said...

(If we lived near a McDonalds I figure I could cut my family food budget by 2/3s... easily. If we could stomach it meal after meal. It's cheaper than eating at home by far if we only get as much food as we need, and don't buy extra we throw away. When the kids were little they had $.29 hamburgers on Wednesdays... I'd bring cheese from home and take us to the park.)

mcg said...

mcg - I sort of doubt michael has an income, so you may need to revise your offer.

Hmm, good point. Well, when Obama gives him a "tax cut" I'll expect him to fork over 45% of it.

Jen Bradford said...

synova, good grief, what are you buying? beans and rice go a hell of a lot further than MickyD's.

Kirk Parker said...

Ann,

"It is puzzling, isn't it?"

Not really. You just have your sarcasm detector set too low. I'll wager a [insert your favorite beverage here] Steyn doesn't really think, in his heart of hearts, that it's puzzling. He's just playing on the bien pensant commonplace which does.

Daniel said...

Corner post, 11:30pm, November 4:

John McCain closes to 4 percent in the election results. In this climate, why couldn't Barack Obama win by more than 4%? This old broke cranky loser may have lost, but he's charging hard! Will you hear that from the liberal media?

Justin said...

With Ramen Noodles, you can feed a family of 6 for $1.00. I'd rather live on that for a week than eat one "meal" at McDonald's.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Now, that would be interesting, considering about 65% of American corporations pay absolutely NOTHING.

I bet you didn't know that either.


C Corporations pay taxes.
"
If you own a corporation for your small business, first the corporation pays 35% taxes, then you pay 15% on dividends. The 15% tax rate on dividends is new since the Bush tax cut. Before, dividends were taxed at the maximum personal rate--which was as high as 39.6% under Clinton. Before the Bush tax cut, an owner of a corporation paid 35% corporate tax + 39.6% federal tax on dividends + state tax on dividends."

BUT did you know that of that 65% a the majority that don't pay taxes are small businesses formed as S-Corps and LLCs Of course you don't know this

Those corporations by design don't pay taxes. The income and dividends are passed through to the shareholders.

Most LLCs are professional service providers. I'm a corporation of one person. The income is passed through the shareholders.....ME and guess who pays the taxes? >>>>>>ME.

So the fact that 65% of corporations don't pay taxes doesn't mean diddly doo squat, because the shareholder/owners do.

You need to realize that C Corporations like Exxon are taxed and then the same income paid to shareholders is taxed again. Double taxation.

Not all corporations are the same.
Sheesh. Econ 101

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That's called "war profiteering" and I can't believe many here see it as nothing more than a company getting their just rewards.

What a retard. That's called supply and demand. Exxon doesn't own it's own stock. Shareholders own the stock. Mutal funds, pension plans, grandma and grandpa own the stock.

hawkeyedjb said...

We need fewer disgusting, greedy corporations like Exxon, and more companies like General Motors! They don't make any fucking profit! Sure, they tossed a half-million employees in the last few decades, and their pension plans are in the crapper, and they're standing in line for a Washington (taxpayer) bailout, but at least they're not making those damned evil profits.

garage mahal said...

I wish liberals would get with the program. Look at this wonderful economy conservatives have given us, again. They're smart. They "get it". They're serious!

jprapp said...

Michael -

Good luck finding the links between war profiteering and Big Oil.

“Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years (before 2007) is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report” (GAO, reported in New York Times, Middleast, 2007/05/12).

See especially comments by Philip Verleger, an oil economist: “That’s a staggering amount of oil to lose every month ... but, given everything else that’s been written about Iraq, it’s not a surprise.”

See Michael, Iraq’s a big country, and it’s a big, confusing war, and all those accounting books are very hard to keep, and those weapons of mass destruction are just so hard to find these days, and with all that oil getting “lost” daily ... well, big oil can’t possibly be smart enough to be profiteering on the war.

Michael, you see. Since we're loosing so much oil daily in that confusing war (along with those weapons of mass destruction), and since we can't really keep track of so much war oil, well, golly gee, it's not the war's fault, and that why our only other solution to keep big oil in the black is drill, baby drill.

Jen Bradford said...

This headline in the (UK)Times cracked me up - not "dampen" but:

Barack Obama lays plans to deaden expectation after election victory

Michael said...

Bunny, If you actually think the price of oil went from $28 in 2003 to $147 in July of this year...and has now plummeted to under $70...because of "supply and demand"...then you're even dumber than I thought.

Most of it was a result of pure speculation and a manipulation of the market.

Do you really think we're using so much less oil today...than about three months ago...that would result in such a massive decline in the price of oil?

I bet you do.

*Oh, and those here who don't think Exxon is engaged in pure war profiteering are un-American fools.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ:

You are a numbers cruncher. Once I tried to calculate what an oil company makes per gallon of oil.
My back of the envelope analysis came up with less than a dime in after tax profit.

Do you have any idea if that sounds about right?

Michael said...

Do you think John has passed this on to Ms. Sarah?

*In an interview with Larry King that aired last night, John McCain admitted that he doesn't think Barack Obama is a socialist, which runs counter to most of his campaign rhetoric for the past week.

mcg said...

Most of it was a result of pure speculation and a manipulation of the market.

Ah. So it isn't "war profiteering" then.

Quayle said...

The American economy, with its government-hands-off history, has single handedly raised the standard of living for the entire world.

Dictators and despots that hate America get on jets we invented to meet with their fellow plunderers in hotels built with techniques we invented, and rush to get in front of cameras we invented, to broadcast across satellite networks we invented to televisions that we invented and tell us what horrible people we are.

And all because of that, we're now supposed to hate America and the American economic system, and condemn it, and wish we were China building new airports and train stations.

Who invented most of the technology that enabled China to build what they built? We did.

But Obama thinks that China is the model - the example - and we are the losers and the jerks.

What a clueless snake-oil-salesman. he is.

holdfast said...

"It is puzzling, isn't it?"

-Not for anyone who's been looking at who Obama is, rather than what they wish him to be.


"I hope Steyn is not under the impression that McCain would deal with people like him if he didn't need their votes."

-That's ok, Steyn wouldn't be dealing with McAmnesty if we didnot need him to stop Obama.

Michael said...

AJ Lynch said..."My back of the envelope analysis came up with less than a dime in after tax profit."

Well, based on your math, with a barrel holding 55 gallons so they're pulling down about $5.50 in net profits per barrel.

Do you think that's a fair profit...considering the state of the economy and the wars we're involved in?

*And I love the argument put forth about GM being in trouble...considering a big part of their situation is directly related to the price of oil and in turn, gasoline...just as in the case of the airlines.

Brilliant.

holdfast said...

"Most of it was a result of pure speculation and a manipulation of the market."

-Why, I would bet that some of those speculators are even non-Americans, some may even be Arabs. It is a real shame that America has no way to influence the price of a commodity like oil which is totally priced on the margins, I mean it's not like we could explore and drill more of our own oil.... nah!

mcg said...

Quit being an idiot and answer the question: what is a "reasonable" profit margin, Michael? 10%? 9%? 5%? 3%? Are the shareholders of Exxon allowed to make any money off of the $120 billion dollars of work they put into the company that quarter? GIve us an actual number.

Michael said...

quayle - "...we're now supposed to hate America and the American economic system, and condemn it..."

Who is it that you're referring to?

I don't know anyone who says or believes anything approaching what you're inferring.

You think liberals, Obama, Democrats...hate America?

Based on what?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you actually think the price of oil went from $28 in 2003 to $147 in July of this year...and has now plummeted to under $70...because of "supply and demand"...then you're even dumber than I thought.

The FUTURES traders speculate on future demand based against anticipated future supply. The reason prices have come down recently is that the traders are betting that Obama will become President and that demand in the FUTURE will be considerably down, because we will be in an economic tailspin and a deep recession.

If they bet wrongly and demand it is up against supply, then they lose a lot of money.

BTW: You aren't any dumber than I originally thought. Its about the same as my first impression.

Al: That sounds about right. For oil companies that refine gas the profit margin on that product is very very small

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

You think liberals, Obama, Democrats...hate America?

Nah, just you, Michael.

Quayle said...

You think liberals, Obama, Democrats...hate America?

Based on what?


Based upon his stated desire to generally change America as we know it.

And his specific desire to raise taxes on corporations and capitalists, and use the absolute power of the government to redistribute the wealth (with no added value given back to society or the rest of us by the recipients)

And his rediculous statements for us to "look at what China is doing, building new trainstations and airports."

Yes, let's look at what China is doing for the billions and billions that live at standard that is a small fraction of what even our poorest in America list at.

But somehow, with Obama, they are the shining example for us to follow.

I'm surprised you have the credulity to ask.

It is so obvious.

Quayle said...

should be millions and millions...

Michael said...

mcg, If you like what Exxon's doing, buy their stock.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. (Keep in mind that the "energy Sector" includes all companies involved in energy production, etc. not just the oil companies themselves. It also des not include the massive write-offs that basically negate almost all taxes one way or another.)

My argument relates to the fact that oil is so instrumental to our economy and the wars we're waging, and that it's unseemly to have an American company making so much money off of our situation.

It' called gouging by some, war profiteering by me and others.

veni vidi vici said...

"but to me it seems, dare I say it?

Un-American."


Another lefty questioning his political opponents' patriotism.

Dog bites man, again.

*yawn*

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Al here is an article that breaks down the cost of oil/gas/exploration etc.

Crude currently trades around $110 a barrel, but breaking down the money in that barrel of oil is tough. Exploration and production costs, royalty payments - all a big part of $110 a barrel oil - vary widely country by country and project by project.

"It's difficult to generalize; there's a whole spectrum of costs," said Ron Planting, an economist with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group.

They can range from $1 a barrel to produce crude in Saudi Arabia to over $70 a barrel to find, develop and pump oil in the deep water Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Algeria, said Ann-Louise Hittle, an oil analyst with the energy consultants Wood Mackenzie.

EIA estimates it costs U.S. oil companies an average of about $24 a barrel to find, develop and produce oil worldwide, but that doesn't include costs like transportation, administration, or income taxes - which can be substantial. While Exxon made $40 billion in 2007, a 60% increase from 2004, it paid $100 billion in taxes and royalties.


So when the prices come down, does Michael think that all the other expenses come down too?????

mccullough said...

Michael,

GM is in the shitter because it's a poorly run company.

The gov't isn't being asked to bail out Toyota America, Honda America, or Nissan America.

Those companies make cars people like at prices people like. They also invested in hybrid technology in the '90s while the fat cats in Detroit were rolling in money from the SUV fad and $1 a gallon gas.

Funny that Obama (and McCain) excoriate the Wall Street assholes but not a peep about the Detroit assholes.

Toyota has defeated GM. It's just that simple.

Quayle said...

So when the prices come down, does Michael think that all the other expenses come down too?????

Not to mention that it is wise corporate governance to build reserves during boom years to carry you over during bust years.

Something that the car makers didn't do.

But also something that the Wall Street banks absolutely failed at.

It is amazing that they were so thin (and these are banks, mind you) that they lost 8 months worth of income and they are done.

As bad off as GM and Ford are, they could lose 8 months of income now and again and putter on for years.

former law student said...

It is because McCain IS a GOOD man.

Good men don't cheat on their disfigured wives.

[w/irony] I have no idea why people would vote for a war hero over a law school teacher for POTUS.

And yet in 2000 Republicans picked a failed businessman and daddy's boy over that war hero, two to one. If McCain is only half as good as W., who could rationally vote for him?

blake said...

I'm glad FLS feels comfortable deciding who's not a good man based on past sins.

He'll be comfortable with the people deciding that about Obama, then.

mcg said...

My argument relates to the fact that oil is so instrumental to our economy and the wars we're waging, and that it's unseemly to have an American company making so much money off of our situation.

SO PICK A NUMBER, then. What is a fair amount? 8.5%, the S&P average? Fine. Something tells me however that you would still have called the resulting $11.36 billion profit "disgusting".

mccullough said...

FLS

Grow up. McCain "cheated on his disfigured wife."

She doesn't harbor any resentment against him and he took responsibility for it. If she can get over it, so can you.

McCain is a better man than Obama. He's displayed physical and political courage, something Obama has yet to do.

ron st.amant said...

Let the conservatives keep thinking this race is close, it will only serve them more angst on the morning after Election Day.

Unless McCain flips Pennsylvania he loses because Virginia and Colorado are going blue.

Btw, I just filled out my absentee ballot and whenever I vote, I always try to pause and think about people in the past who sacrificed so that I can do so (and that includes Senator McCain even though I'm not voting for him, I respect and admire his service).

This year is particularly hard for me and my thoughts center on one veteran in particular- my Dad. He was a 20-year Navy man, served in Vietnam from 64-68, and loved his country.

He also loved to talk politics with me, even though we often disagreed on the issues.

I'd give anything to sit and have another talk.

So thanks Dad, and thank you to all of you who serve or have served so that I can vote (even if my choice is one you hate).

And whomever you support- Vote!

mcg said...

Yes. I would definitely be careful before using infidelity to judge character differences between McCain and Obama. That's gonna come back to bite you.

Michael said...

quayle: "Based upon his stated desire to generally change America as we know it."

Are you doing drugs?

I've heard nothing that would even remotely relate to such a notion.

Most of what you say is nothing more than Republican talking points we can get from Rush and others.

Reagan and Clinton both raised taxes, and Obama's comments relating to China and others are directed at moving away from oil and creating public transportation (bullet trains, etc.) that would save Americans money and help wean us from other more expensive energy expenses.

You're against this?

mcg said...

Public transportation saves Americans money? In what parallel universe?

Trumpit said...

I would be thrilled if Rethuglicans & evangelical Christians commit suicide en masse, holding hands, after Barak Osama Hussein Bin Laden Mohammed Ayers Weatherman Commie Obama gets elected. Where is Jim Jones when we need him? There will be more wealth to spread around once all the fascist right-wingers and their idiotic Jesus-loving allies have all died and gone to hell.

Revenant said...

Good men don't cheat on their disfigured wives.

But they do cheat on their non-disfigured wives?

I like how lefties keep throwing out "disfigured", like the fact that McCain's wife wasn't hot anymore is what REALLY makes his leaving her bad. A normal person would say that what made the cheating bad was the violation of the marriage vows.

Then again, lefties can't criticize people for cheating on a healthy wife. They spent the 90s insisting there was nothing wrong with Clinton doing it. :)

former law student said...

He's displayed physical and political courage, something Obama has yet to do.

Why insist your hero is a "GOOD man" when he's clearly flawed? Why do we even want a "GOOD man" for President? Why not a mean SOB like Nixon or LBJ?

mcg said...

Well, I for one want a good man who is still willing to kick serious ass when it's called for.

mccullough said...

FLS

Someone can be a good man or woman and still be deeply flawed.

How old are you?

matthew said...

Ann, this isn't particularly puzzling since a large percentage of voters would choose the republican candidate in any race. (Just like a large percentage would choose the democrat so long as it wasn't Mondale).

Obama has had a longer stronger lead in the polls than anyone in the past two elections.

As to the so-called Bradely effect, despite the popular myth, there really is no evidence in this election so far, or ever really, to support it's existence.

This article sums it up nicely http://www.pollster.com/blogs/hidden_mccain_vote.php

Of course, since this was done by college professors we know it can't be trusted...

John Stodder said...

I think last night's show was a wasted opportunity for Obama. He should've studied Reagan's 1980 infomercial. Reagan, who pitched Borax and GE for years after his acting career dried up, knew how to close a sale. The stuff Obama talked about last night was kind of going back to the middle of his narrative, i.e. "people are hurting out there." True, but the voters he needs are less worried about the safety net and more worried about the health of the economy.

Obama needed to address how his plans will grow the economy, boost the stock market (in which independent voters are generally invested) and turn around the housing market (lots of folks have lost a lot of the wealth they expected to retire on because their own home's appraised value has dropped).

McCain's been pretty effective at sowing fear about Obama's economic philosophy. Not everybody gets it that "you can't raise taxes in a recession," the but independent swing voters probably do.

This election is going to be decided by a few million white, over-40 married couples with a combined income at the upper end of Obama's no-tax zone, sprinkled among the swing states where the campaign is now focusing: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire and a few others. They've come to hate George Bush and want to punish him by voting against McCain. McCain's dithering on the economic meltdown made them feel even firm and more confident about voting for Obama, who got the optics right (as he does so often) on the crisis. But now they're wavering. Some of what McCain/Palin have been saying is getting through. Joe the Plumber is someone these people know. These people are educated, so they know what's behind words like "redistribution." Meanwhile, the financial crisis seems to be at a pause. The stock market has had a few good days. McCain/Palin have stopped shooting themselves in the feet momentarily.

I'm sure quite a few of the 33 million who watched Obama last night were hoping for a sign that would finally firm them up in their conviction to vote for him. I don't think they got it, which means it was a colossal waste of money. Obama is still the favorite, but he keeps leaving the door open for McCain/Palin to steal (metaphorically) his lead. If he doesn't combat the impression that he is too liberal, he could lose.

Last night's show was very liberal. Calm, measured, thoughtful liberalism, but liberalism nonetheless. This last weekend, Obama needs to take a big step to the right, and show he also cares about the people who pay the bills in this country. They want to like him, but he's got to meet them halfway.

John Stodder said...

Why not a mean SOB like Nixon or LBJ?

Um, because they both fucked up royally?

Nixon and LBJ brought us lots of things that hurt the country. They share blame for the Vietnam debacle. They also share blame for runaway inflation and economic stagnation of the 1970s. Together, they discredited the political order that used to exist. They were both into intrigue and conspiracy and yet both were endlessly paranoid that intrigue and conspiracy were being aimed at them. They were mean SOBs because they were neurotic, insecure man-children. Brilliant to be sure, but unforgivably awful.

dannyboy said...

I tanked up for $1.98 a gallon this morning before heading off to the salt mines. I was very excited because it leaves me a extra money left over to get tanked up at the pub. At least 3 extra pints of Tennents.

blake said...

Why insist your hero is a "GOOD man" when he's clearly flawed?

This is probably the most revelatory statement I've read since, well, not that long actually, since there are daily posts indicating a complete lack of understanding of economic basics.

This argument reveals that FLS:

a) Believes heroes aren't flawed.
b) Probably believes Obama isn't flawed (else why single McCain out, when he's subject to far less hero worship than BHO?)

You almost have to admire the shallowness of understanding required of both history and current events to make a statement like this.

blake said...

Tennents? The alcoholic beverage of hobos?

dannyboy said...

Old Lyndon was said to be hung like a horse and once claimed he saddled more tail by accident than JFK did on purpose.

I think Ike was banging his secretary but that was during the war so I'll cut him some slack for that.

Carter was just content to fuck the country.

dannyboy said...

Tennents? The alcoholic beverage of hobos?

Oh you bastard.....

dannyboy said...

Now I can just imagine the escapades that went on in 8 years of Clinton. I'm betting that Mrs. Bush had the carpets replaced and the whole place desantized by the army's haz-mat units.

I bet if you turned on a black light in the Oval Office it looked like the floor of a porn theater.

blake said...

What? It isn't?

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ & MCG:

Thanks for your replies and the link re my question on oil profits per unit.

I was interested in what was a reasonable profit range and you both agree that the after-tax profit is below 10% and that is certainly not gouging.

As expected Michael did not answer our questions but introduced the "fairness" issue as if Senator Obama can make things fair. Of course, Obama claims he will reduce the cost of health insurance by $2500 per year per family! Maybe he can miraculously cut BMW prices too- I always wanted to buy one of those.

dannyboy said...

What? It isn't?

Oh well I supposed when you ranking them by Guinness, Harps, or Boddington's well then sure I suppose it can come trailing in well behind. Just because SOME of us happen to enjoy it's refreshing and crisp taste and aromatic boquet doesn't mean you have to disparage us with the wankers who like to drink swill like Heineken.

If I had feelings they'd be hurt.

former law student said...

Someone can be a good man or woman and still be deeply flawed.

This is that self-esteem-building noncompetitive pabulum the education bureaucracy attempts to shove down our throats. Rigorous standards must be maintained, lest terms like "good" and "evil" become meaningless.

mcg said...

Well, there's always the Christian argument: "There is no one righteous; no, not one."

I think inevitably, if the term "good" is going to have any useful meaning, it must necessarily be subjective and allow for imperfection.

blake said...

Dannyboy--

For what it's worth, I don't drink at all, so, you know, total wanker here.

blake said...

FLS--

That's a poor dodge.

People are not cartoons, not even those who disagree with you.

John McCain was most certainly heroic during his imprisonment, and during the FOrrestal fire. Whatever else he did.

Gandhi was heroic, even though he was a world class lech. MLK was heroic, despite his many flaws.

What the hell happened to you?

mcg said...

For what it's worth, I don't drink at all, so, you know, total wanker here.

Oh, no, no. Not drinking at all is far preferable to drinking swill.

Then again, is not drinking kind of like voting present?

mcg said...

Hmm. Maybe Michael would have Exxon donate $12.46B of those obscene profits to CBS. Spread the wealth around, you know.

dannyboy said...

For what it's worth, I don't drink at all, so, you know, total wanker here.

Oh you're not a wanker at all. That just means more for me!

dannyboy said...

People are not cartoons

Oh I don't know about that. Oprah looks a lot like a cartoon. That Rowan Atkinson looks like a cartoon. That Kucinich guy looks like a bad cartoon. But he's married to a babe. How's that work? Bastard can probably lick his eyebrows or has a 10 inch johnson.

blake said...

No, going to a bar and ordering cranberry juice is voting "present".

I just don't go to bars.

blake said...

That Kucinich guy looks like a bad cartoon. But he's married to a babe. How's that work? Bastard can probably lick his eyebrows or has a 10 inch johnson.

It's the Barney Rubble effect.

ron st.amant said...

I'm faily certain Kucinich is The Great Gazoo.

former law student said...

John McCain was most certainly heroic during his imprisonment, and during the FOrrestal fire.

Ah. "Heroic" is not a synonym for good. Even the biggest putz in the world can rise to an occasion, if only to feed his ego.

(Was there a real life Jack Smurch, or was he wholly a product of James Thurber's imagination?)

AllenS said...

My source: www.wisconsingasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

Taxes vs. profits

Wisconsin tax on gas is 51.3 cents per gallon (includes 18.4 fed tax). Let's say gas costs $2.50 per gal., so:

$2.50
-51.3 cents
------
$1.98.7

Let's say the evil Exxon makes 10% profit on each gallon of gas. That means they will make 19.9 cents per gallon. Who's more eviler?

Defenseman Emeritus said...

I'm still interested in what percent of revenues Michael feels is an acceptable profit--a question he continues to duck.