Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Walker is trying to get property taxes down which are some of the highest in the country!!! In fact he has gotten them down a little. You will NEVER find a democrat doing that. The democrats in Wisconsin glorify teachers, overpay them and love the union. It's old and dumb, it's hard to even keep a straight face around these people. The rest of them somehow think democrats are for the little people, whereas they keep them little while lining their own pockets! They are elite snobs who actually look down at the "little people".
By little people you mean the low information voter who votes with heart, not brain.
These low information, non thinking morons are same people that actually listen to the drivel from folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi and in Wisconsin, WEAC commercials.
We don't live there anymore but still own property there (and pay property taxes) - Go Walker!
Harry Reid does not want the pipeline. Why do you even want to align yourself with these people. They are evil.
Let me get this straight. If we build a pipeline from Alberta Canada to a port in Texas in the Gulf of Mexico gas will then be magically priced at $1 per gallon or so.
You realize that it costs at a least $70 a barrel to produce tar sand oil from Canada and even more per barrel from fracking in North Dakota and Montana. If the price drops any lower than it is today production will begin to slow down or even stop.
The main reason why the price of oil has collapsed is due to Saudi Arabia overproducing oil to dramatically lower the price to punish the Iranians and Russians.
WASHINGTON 10/17/2014 @ 12:27PM
Putin, Erdogan, Saudi Arabia: The Balance Of Power Is Shifting
FORBES - Melik Kaylin
If you subtract Ebola and ISIS from the news, what are the three most significant recent developments in world affairs? Here are my nominations: Saudi Arabia announces it will raise production and drop oil prices, Turkey loses its bid to serve on the UN Security Council, a meeting between Putin and Merkel gets cancelled because he’s late (though they meet later). You may be surprised to know that all three events do interconnect in unexpected ways. They also tell us a lot about real-time shifts in geostrategic power balances, how they happen and how to read them.
Let us begin with the first. Why would Saudi Arabia seemingly cut off its nose to spite its face, as it were, by gratuitously reducing its own national revenue? Recent reports have it that the Saudis are willing to see oil prices go down to $80 a barrel and even, according to this report, down to $60 or $50 for preferred customers in the West and Asia.http://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/4023...h-price-of-oil. The article identifies the real purpose: to punish Iran, Russia and its client Assad, of Syria. Top Russian oil official Mikhail Leontyev from Rosneft was quoted in Russian media as saying, “Saudi Arabia has begun making big discounts on oil. This is political manipulation and Saudi Arabia is being manipulated politically which could end badly”. Translated into blunt English, Leontyev is actually threatening the Saudis while not accusing them directly. In other words, the Russians know it’s the Saudis making a strategic move against them. According to most statisticians Moscow needs to sell oil at $100 to pay for its budget commitments.http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...prices-2014-10.
What I love about this article is how the low information voters have no idea how the United States or the Obama Administration waged economic war against Iran, Russia and Syria and used the Saudi to do it and the American Consumer benefits with lower gas prices.
Last edited by Allan Trafton; 11-03-2014 at 08:25 PM..
By little people you mean the low information voter who votes with heart, not brain.
These low information, non thinking morons are same people that actually listen to the drivel from folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi and in Wisconsin, WEAC commercials.
There are plenty of such voters across the political spectrum. Emotional, knee-jerk conservatives (who listen to Belling, Sykes, Limbaugh, Boehner, etc.) are just as uninformed as emotional, knee-jerk liberals.
For the low information crowd. How much production of US oil cost. Lets see if we can get $1 gas out of this.
Just How Expensive Is Shale Oil?
By Arjun Sreekumar | More Articles
June 15, 2013 | Comments (1)
While new technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling are largely responsible for the boom in U.S. oil and gas production, the costs associated with these so-called "technological barrels" are on the rise.
So exactly how costly is shale oil production? Staggeringly expensive, according to a new report from a leading energy research firm. Let's take a closer look.
Costs still rising
According to recent estimates by Sanford C. Bernstein, a research and consulting firm, non-OPEC marginal cost of production rose last year to a whopping $104.50 a barrel, representing more than a 13% increase from $92.30 a barrel in the previous year.
What's more is that marginal production costs for U.S. drillers rose by even more, in both relative and absolute terms, from around $89 per barrel in 2011 to a remarkable $114 a barrel last year. While many have argued that rising marginal costs of production for unconventional oil projects will help buoy oil prices by driving a floor underneath prices, they're also limiting the industry's profitability.
Bernstein's findings are worrying, because they imply that new technological improvements aren't enough to bring down the industry's overall marginal costs. "What we call technological barrels are day after day more expensive," Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of French oil giant Total (NYSE: TOT ) , recently told the Financial Times.
Implications for big oil
That's bad news for the world's largest integrated oil companies, which are seeing reduced profitability due to the double whammy of rising costs and a cap on oil prices as a result of increased supply due to the shale boom. Not surprisingly, profit margins among the world's 50-largest listed oil companies are currently the lowest they've been in a decade, according to Bernstein.
For instance, net income margins for ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM ) , BP (NYSE: BP ) , and Total have all fallen from their highs near the middle of the previous decade. Last year, BP and Total reported margins of 3.1% and 5.9%, respectively, down significantly from 2005 respective margins of 9.2% and 10.5%.
Exxon's net income margin, however, fell only modestly, coming in at 10.9% last year, as compared with 10.5% in 2005. And ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP ) was one of the few majors that managed to buck the weak margin trend, posting an impressive 14% net income margin last year, up from 8.2% in 2005.
Bernstein further finds that, over the past decade, marginal production costs have risen by about 250%, from just under $30 a barrel in 2002 to a record of $104.5 a barrel last year, while cash costs have increased from $9.70 a barrel to $44.20 a barrel over the same time period.
The bottom line
The big takeaway is that the marginal barrel of oil is becoming more expensive to produce, which is helping buoy oil prices. But rising costs and lower profitability are a major challenge for the world's largest integrated oil companies, which are struggling to boost production and reserves.
Most reported year-over-year declines in total oil and gas production for the first quarter, despite high levels of capital spending, which suggests diminishing returns from their upstream spending. According to energy research and consulting firm Douglas-Westwood, the upstream industry spent $2.4 trillion to produce 12.3 million barrels per day of additional oil output in the period 1995-2005.
Yet in the period from 2005 to 2010, the same level of spending actually yielded a decline of 0.2 million barrels per day. With unconventional sources of oil expected to account for a much larger share of total production over the next several years, energy companies will have to find better ways to get more out of their money.
9 rock-solid dividend stocks you can buy today
Dividend stocks can make you rich. It's as simple as that. While they don't garner the notoriety of high-flying growth stocks, they're also less likely to crash and burn. And over the long term, the compounding effect of the quarterly payouts, as well as their growth, adds up faster than most investors imagine. With this in mind, our analysts sat down to identify the absolute best of the best when it comes to rock-solid dividend stocks, drawing up a list in this free report of nine that fit the bill. To discover the identities of these companies before the rest of the market catches on, you can download this valuable free report by simply clicking here now.
Fool contributor Arjun Sreekumar has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Total. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Stuff like this is so discouraging. Yes the sources have a bias but the Wisconsin Jobs Now "Beat Walker" poster is clear as is the video of the Milwaukee election official's parking preference for the WJN vans. Oh well. Real world I guess. But it spurred me to try and get out the vote with my friends.
Oh who cares! These people are driving people to the polls so they can vote. Is that what you have a problem with, that people are voting? If you're complaining about vans parking outside of muni building, you're stretching to complain about something, anything. That's pretty sad.
re: Russ Feingold, I really doubt he wants to run for a state level office at this point, after being in the Senate for quite a few years. He is probably thinking about trying to win back his former seat from Sen. Johnson in 2016.
re: Russ Feingold, I really doubt he wants to run for a state level office at this point, after being in the Senate for quite a few years. He is probably thinking about trying to win back his former seat from Sen. Johnson in 2016.
Agreed. I think he would have taken the governorship in a landslide.
Stuff like this is so discouraging. Yes the sources have a bias but the Wisconsin Jobs Now "Beat Walker" poster is clear as is the video of the Milwaukee election official's parking preference for the WJN vans. Oh well. Real world I guess. But it spurred me to try and get out the vote with my friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile
Oh who cares! These people are driving people to the polls so they can vote. Is that what you have a problem with, that people are voting? If you're complaining about vans parking outside of muni building, you're stretching to complain about something, anything. That's pretty sad.
You obviously missed the point although it is so obvious that I can hardly believe anyone would miss it. Or are you intentionally missing the point and misunderstanding my post in an effort to deflect the obvious point? Your response is mystifying.
I will clarify it for you. It's fine that people are being driven in vans to the polls to vote...that is actually a good thing. People should be voting. What is not fine is that the Milwaukee election official reserved convenient parking spaces for *only* the WJN vans and told others in vans that they could not park in those spots because they were reserved for the WJN vans. So a Milwaukee election official was giving special and exclusive parking preference to a liberal organization (WJN) whose posters advertising their offer to transport people to the polls for early voting announced "Beat Walker". If you don't care about that then you are fueling the notion that liberals have very loose ethics regarding the voting process.
re: Russ Feingold, I really doubt he wants to run for a state level office at this point, after being in the Senate for quite a few years. He is probably thinking about trying to win back his former seat from Sen. Johnson in 2016.
Yeah prolly. But why such a weak Dem candidate for our gubernatorial race? There's gotta be more substance out there. What about Ron Kind? Surely the Dem powers that be must consider Walker beatable. I don't get it.
Agreed. I think he would have taken the governorship in a landslide.
So do I.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
