|
|
|
|
|
| | ClimategatePage 5 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) |
As that is the ultimate purpose of a corporation, there is nothing wrong with that.
The only thing Wrong...the Charter. The State creates a Monster, Eternal and Immoral with no nation. Hear that Giant Sucking sound, Jobs and the Middle Class. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/13/2009 9:35:06 PM |
Seems like you deniers.... Love Corporate Behavior and Trust their NO Science spin.
I think corporate law needs to be completely revoked. All it does is give corporations special rights and political power. I'm no fan of corporations. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to buy the claims of other monied interests. Climate science rakes in millions of dollars per year, which would mostly disappear if AGW were to fall from grace. So who should we believe? Personally I think we should let the science decide. And the science isn't settled. Far from it. Read the scientific papers and you'll see that major aspects of the climate are not well understood and not well modeled (e.g. aerosols, glaciers, clouds, and ocean currents). And yet you're willing to blame GW on man. You're willing to let Gore and his corporate buddies get rich off his carbon schemes. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/14/2009 7:48:54 AM |
As that is the ultimate purpose of a corporation, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that it means they have almost no willingness or ability to self-regulate, which is essentially the way the system has been "working."
The fox is guarding the henhouse, as they say.
It's basically like dealing with a used car saleman. You don't instinctively trust them. You haggle for the best deal and assume that what they want often conflicts with what you want. They problem is that from Reagan on we have had this trickle down idea that what is best for corporations is best for everyone. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/14/2009 7:58:55 AM |
They problem is that from Reagan on we have had this trickle down idea that what is best for corporations is best for everyone. So true,and when we needed important financial guidance, Bush calls to the Largest Corporate banks,I believe it was Chase that came to the rescue and they are then the ones that write our policy,how very helpful of them ! They wrote it how they would like it,it gave them more power on the what they can do with our loans and credit cards and such.It like wanting to redecorate then install a security system in the hen house so you hire a company run by foxes to do the work. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/14/2009 8:18:59 AM | | Well since small business is literally the engine that drives our economy, yes, in general what is good for corporations is generally good for America, and don't even START the trickle down stuff. Obama is giving us trickle down too! Very little of the bailout money is actually hitting the street. What they should have done is give tax breaks or offer government backed low interest bill consolidation loans. That would have had a direct impact on consumers... Right now, small businesses are NOT getting the help they need to stay in business and create jobs... | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/14/2009 9:08:40 AM |
Well since small business is literally the engine that drives our economy, yes, in general what is good for corporations is generally good for America you seem to be having a problem telling the difference between a corporation like Chase or Tyson or Monsanto and confusing it with something harmless like a corporation like my father had with his 2 partners in a company they owned.They had no grand agenda nor does millions of other small business corporations.Shell and Monsanto is in a different universe than small business corporations.
, and don't even START the trickle down stuff. Obama is giving us trickle down too! Very little of the bailout money is actually hitting the street. finally you say something accurate,yes its true Obama paid months and months ago,and the individual states are still sitting on it wading through their own state contract procedures and bids and permits tie ups of the state .You seem to be thinking the 40% spent from the total is not the states faults whom beholds this money now but the fault of Obama that gave them the money many months ago.Please affix blame where it belongs,gripe at your state for crawling too slowly .Let me know what happens when your state finally spends the other 60% their holding.
What they should have done is give tax breaks or offer government backed low interest bill consolidation loans. That would have had a direct impact on consumers... Right now, small businesses are NOT getting the help they need to stay in business and create jobs... No this method takes a broken infrastructure and helps fix it using our people as workers,your thought gives a low interest loan to a guy that wants to start a 3 employee ski rental shop,or another flower boutique.
The money he gave is a trace amount needed for all sectors,as he stated it was merely a jumpstart,that heps a couple sectors,had he paid the money needed to help all industry sectors,you don't have the room on this page for that many zeros.
As for a write off on your taxes,the vast majority of the country does not itemize their taxes so a write off is worthless, so you would not be helping any of those hoping for a trickle down. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/14/2009 9:13:55 AM |
They problem is that from Reagan on we have had this trickle down idea that what is best for corporations is best for everyone.
The flip side of this is the idea that the corporations should pay for everyone.... a billion dollar profit will always be too exorbitant in some people's minds... even if the company that makes that profit employs a million people (directly or indirectly). If General Motors had asked for tax cuts five years ago (and they probably did....) the outrage would have been excruciating.... only after they've gone broke can people realize that the jobs GM provides are valuable... so let's give them a bailout.
The same resentment is evident with smaller business as well... if the guy who owns the car dealership makes a million dollars a year.... well that's too much... even if he keeps 40 people employed. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 3:16:49 AM | | Actually the corporations aren't paying much of anything. Their effective tax rate is practically zero and often benefit from illegal alien and outsourced labor.Their sheer size and the fact that they are international means that they can always push for rollbacks of labor protections or go somewhere that they don't exist. Which is why nothing is trickling down and we have the highest gap ever between rich and poor. And GM has admitted that they didn't really listen to customers like Toyota did. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 8:28:32 AM | .
Five years ago GM had just bought Hummer and Saab. The needed a tax break?
For what mismanagement? Or their Investment in China? Tax break for Capital improvements in China? Short term business planning, the reason Perot was bought out.
The USA has the Second lowest Corp Tax in the Major economies. Corp contribution to General fund has dropped from 35% 1955 to 7% today. Shift to the Middle class...
. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 9:54:34 AM | I'm a Ford guy, and I live a long ways from Mississauga (or Detroit), so it would bother me very little if GM were to fold (really I prefer cars from 40 yrs ago anyhow... everything today looks the same). To myself, it just feels like a backwards way of running government.... giving bailouts after a company has gone broke instead of tax relief that may have prevented the problem.
Where I live, in Alberta, our provincial government was getting huge revenues from oilfield activity. In something like five years we paid off our debt and unemployment was practically unheard of. The liberals up here were bellyachin' that our oil royalties were the lowest in the world... so our Premier raised them. Now my province is broke again... nobody had considered that the cost of drilling wells in remote northern Canada, with higher labour costs and stricter safety and enviromental regulations, is very high in comparison to the rest of the world. We needed those lower royalties to entice the oil companies to continue doing business here.... | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 10:47:38 AM | Pretty go indication of the supply. You want to have the same standards as Timor, Peru, Nigeria, Congo.... Royalties are a lot lower, just Payoff a guy like Charles Taylor.
How long would Alberta allow the most modern Rig dump oil? 90 days?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skytruth/sets/72157622226354812/detail/
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article200810.ece;jsessionid=34FAA244379B056B21112E03BD60BF63.upstream.franc
A cost the Multi national Corp can externalize. Great for the shareholder value. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 11:59:00 AM | You have a real cryptic style of posting. What does:
Pretty go indication of the supply.
....this mean? And how does an offshore blowout in Australia have any similarities to a province with no coastline?
I've given an example where trickle down economics has worked very well. Kids just out of highschool could get jobs making 100k a year... with lots of opportunities for advancement. Our middle class wasn't hurting at all and government coffers were full. Speaking for myself, I would have preferred a slower growth rate... if my city had grown 30% over ten years instead of 130% I would have been happier (I would be happier if Canada expanded it's manufacturing instead of selling off it's natural resources). Now that we've got all these extra people here isn't the time to shut everything down due to government greed....
It's likely that oil companies could continue to work here and make good money, but if they can make more money elsewhere, should we try and keep them here at gunpoint? Raising taxes on imports from China makes more sense than raising taxes at home... of course this doesn't work very well if we continue to borrow money from them in order to promote stimulus. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 1:27:23 PM | I now return you to the original discussion,
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.
"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Hmmmm, when reporters tried to ask Mr. Gore about this, they were met with “no comment”
And in other news today … http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146139
100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL
The report, by the respected European Foundation, also argues that a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main greenhouse gas – is not a problem because it helps to boost crop yields.
And it claims that the warming we are now experiencing is “mostly natural”, pointing to historic shifts in the climate such as when Vikings farmed on Greenland in medieval times.
**SEE THE 100 REASONS HERE** http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
A few of my favorites …
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
So, don't panic! We need to do positive things to make sure we do not destroy our planet, but CO2 is a good thing. We need more of it, not less. Higher temperatures are a good thing too.
If you look at the history of temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years then you will see that the most frequent state of the planet is "ice-age". We are talking about naturally occurring temperature changes of ~20 degrees Celsius there. To worry about 0.5-3 degrees over the next 100 years is simply ridiculous.
 | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/15/2009 2:17:51 PM | | Flyguy and others...I love how you compare this to how somebody might say good food is bad for you...at least for a while we have the choice to eat what we want, even though that might end soon especially if the government gets more involved in health care. I personally say if you don't like the smell of burning rubber or the sound of eight cylinders straining to their limit, move to Bahston or somewhere else where the guys with the Priii get the babes... | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 12:52:15 PM |
It's basically like dealing with a used car saleman.
A concept with which supports of the obamawan should be very well aquainted. 
Hurry pass the (non) stimulus, hurry we need cap & tax (before it's shown man made GW is a hoax. oops to late), hurry we need health care reform. The obamawan was on TV just yesterday saying health care reform will do this and accomplish that. There isn't even a settled bill in the Senate, but trust the obamawan he knows it'll be good for you. Don't worry about the 1.3 Trillion price tag I have it figured out. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 1:43:07 PM | There is so much wrong with that list of reasons that it is difficult to know where to begin. First and foremost, the skeptics seem rather defensive, but in a contradictory way: "There is no proof that man is causing climate change. Besides, more CO2 and a warming trend would be beneficial to the ecosystem. But we are not to blame for these good things happening, and there's nothing we can do to stop this beneficial trend." Sounds silly when one puts their conclusions together...
Many of the "reasons" aren't even refutations of climate change. They are merely going after peripheral issues, such as cap and trade. Fortunately, someone has already taken the time to rebut the first half of these "reasons":
www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
We actually need more CO2? Do people realize that there is such a thing as overwatering plants?
No one has shown how the hacked e-mails expose a hoax, either. Taking a few bricks from a wall does not cause it to collapse.
To flyguy and others...
Thanks for listening... at least somewhat... | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 4:31:47 PM | Environmentalism is a religion. We're as likely to convince a Christian that Jesus was just a man, as disprove Global Warming to a tree-hugger's satisfaction. Too bad lemmings aren't an endangered species.
| |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 4:47:28 PM |
No one has shown how the hacked e-mails expose a hoax, either.
No but the climate data could very well have. But, oopsy!! Seems the "largest and most comprehensive" collection of climate data has much too sadness been lost. It's not that man-made GW was a hoax as much as it became a religion. A group of climate guys became so wedded to the idea that they went to any length to preserve their theory from data manipulation, to data elimination, to becoming their own "peer review" group, to pressuring those who challegned their conclusions, and on and on. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 5:32:56 PM |
We're as likely to convince a Christian that Jesus was just a man, as disprove Global Warming to a tree-hugger's satisfaction.
In my case, quite the opposite happened, I assure you. Again,
evidence => conclusion
rather than
pre-existing conclusion => filtered evidence
cpfstock, I don't agree with this:
but the climate data could very well have [exposed a hoax]
but I do agree that the hacked e-mails reveal evidence of this with some of the scientists:
It's not that man-made GW was a hoax as much as it became a religion. A group of climate guys became so wedded to the idea that they went to any length to preserve their theory from data manipulation, to data elimination, to becoming their own "peer review" group, to pressuring those who challegned their conclusions, and on and on.
In this case, I see it as:
evidence => conclusion => filtered evidence | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/16/2009 5:37:35 PM |
We actually need more CO2? Do people realize that there is such a thing as overwatering plants?
Arguing this really is like beating your head against a wall, isn't it? As if climate scientists are completely unfamiliar with photosynthesis. Oh well, at least the dittoheads think it means something. I just wish they understood the basic ideas before dismissing it as a cult or a Commie plot. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/21/2009 10:01:45 PM |
The USA has the Second lowest Corp Tax in the Major economies.
Actually the corporations aren't paying much of anything.
Two fine examples of making statements without ever having read a corporate annual report, income statement or balance sheet.
It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes. The 41.6% maximum rate is scheduled to rise to 46.2% in 2010 when President Obama's promised tax increases are implemented. Compare that to socialist France where companies pay only 34.4% in taxes, to China where the rate is 25%, or Russia which levies a mere 24%. Corporations in Ireland, Europe's fastest growing economy for the
last 18 years, pay just 12.5% in taxes.
Based on the GDP data from 2008, some of the world's largest economies are also providing a tax environment much friendlier to businesses than the United States.
Communist China, the world's third largest economy, lowered its top corporate tax rate to 25% as of January 1, 2008. The new tax rate replaced the previous one of 33%.
Russia, the world's eighth largest economy, currently taxes its corporations just 24%.
Brazil, the world's tenth largest economy, taxes its companies a maximum 34% rate.
India, the world's twelfth largest economy, taxes its corporations at a rate of 33%.
The United States is the world's largest economy. When compared to the next 14 countries that represent the world's largest economies by GDP as of 2008, from the second largest (Japan) to the fifteenth largest (South Korea), the emerging patterns are striking:
24 US states have higher corporate tax rates than all 14 other countries.
32 US states have higher corporate tax rates than 13 of the 14 countries.
46 US states have higher corporate tax rates than 12 of the 14 countries.
All 50 states have higher corporate tax rates than 11 of the 14 countries.
But we can ignore the facts, YES WE CAN! | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/22/2009 5:08:24 AM |
But we can ignore the facts, YES WE CAN!
Of course the effective tax rate for large corporations is around 25%, and more than a third pay less than 10%. For multinationals who keep most of their money offshore, the effective rate is around 4%.
State taxes are deductible on the federal taxes.
Outside of closing loopholes on companies who keep money offshore, the specific Obama/Democratic position on the corporate tax rate is unclear, but all signs point to them lowering it, not raising it.
But feel free to ignore the facts. And quoting conservative think tanks without citing the source is priceless. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/25/2009 5:15:10 AM | | Regardless of how you figure the number. Federal taxes or federal (minus state taxes) and state taxes added togther american coporations are the highest taxed in the of any industrial country. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/25/2009 5:15:25 AM | Regardless of how you figure the number. Federal taxes or federal (minus state taxes) and state taxes added togther american coporations are the highest taxed in the of any industrial country.
As I've stated here before I used to quote sources. But, I learned if you qoute the Heritage Fondation or Fox as claiming 2 + 2 = 4 their are those who would dispute the claim base purely on the source. Simialar to what you've done.
But, all that aside the current tax rate (Based on the 2008 Annual Report) or Exxon Mobil was 44.685%
But, taxing these corportations at much higher rates is great idea. Espicially, if you want to destroy the value of thousands of retirees (teachers chief among them) pension plans and retirement savings. | |
|
| Climategate
Posted: 12/25/2009 8:31:38 AM | .
Two fine examples of making statements without ever having read a corporate annual report, income statement or balance sheet.
It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes.
But we can ignore the facts, YES WE CAN!
If You refer to the Annual Exxon report not a Blog .....
Facts .....Exxon last year paid approx 21% taxes on their balance sheet. Not 44%. They also repurchased BILLIONS in stock. Not Taxed. Deferred. The cash for repurchase was from income. Effect tax rate of 10% The most profitable Corp ever.
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#cci
USA corp tax to GDP lowest of the OECD nations ... 28% an example of Fact.
How about some support of your Corp payment of 45% taxes...
Let's see the 1/4 or a balance sheet.
.
. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
