February 2, 200719 yr Can someone point out the reason of the title of the thread when the article says...... Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. I believe it is because the previous Congress granted sizable tax breaks to the big oil companies.
February 2, 200719 yr Author Can someone point out the reason of the title of the thread when the article says...... Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. I covered it in an earlier post, and H has already answered it, but since I titled the thread, I'll say it again - the US government (during the last 6 years) has seen their way clear to grant some very nice tax breaks to the oil industry - under the guise that the tax breaks would spur them on to bigger and better R & D efforts. In view of the monstrous profits that they are currently enjoying, I would say that they are more than capable of financing their own R & D programs. When you couple that with this story, it is obvious that those monies could have been better spent giving teachers, soldiers, policemen, or firemen a pay raise - or almost as good - a TAX BREAK. Frances
February 2, 200719 yr A story in The Guardian, a British newspaper, this morning reports that: I guess that's the whole point here, isn't it? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html#article_continue My thoughts exactly.
February 2, 200719 yr You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. You're making the assertion that all scientific research is performed with an agenda in mind and secretly bought and paid for by entities with a financial stake in the findings. Have all of the scientific research findings from all of the disparate technical disciplines that have reported consistent evidence of global warming and correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels been covertly commissioned and paid for by some secret society of treehuggers? Could such a group possibly outspend the fantastically profitable oil giants or even keep their massive research-for-pay undertakings so well concealed from public scrutiny? One of the cornerstones of scientific research and publishing is the peer-review process. Heck, they can't all be on the payroll. I don't buy into the notion that the thundering chorus of scientists from dozens of different scientific disciplines who are finding evidence of manmade global warming are all being paid to report findings in some orchestrated scheme. On the other hand, those with a financial interest in preventing caps on carbon emissions have realized they only need to sow a few seeds of uncertainty to cast doubt on the peer-reviewed conclusions of thousands of independent scientists. What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to? Roswell, Men in Black, and the grassy knoll.
February 2, 200719 yr You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. You're making the assertion that all scientific research is performed with an agenda in mind and secretly bought and paid for by entities with a financial stake in the findings. Have all of the scientific research findings from all of the disparate technical disciplines that have reported consistent evidence of global warming and correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels been covertly commissioned and paid for by some secret society of treehuggers? Could such a group possibly outspend the fantastically profitable oil giants or even keep their massive research-for-pay undertakings so well concealed from public scrutiny? One of the cornerstones of scientific research and publishing is the peer-review process. Heck, they can't all be on the payroll. I don't buy into the notion that the thundering chorus of scientists from dozens of different scientific disciplines who are finding evidence of manmade global warming are all being paid to report findings in some orchestrated scheme. On the other hand, those with a financial interest in preventing caps on carbon emissions have realized they only need to sow a few seeds of uncertainty to cast doubt on the peer-reviewed conclusions of thousands of independent scientists. What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to? Right, all that grant money holds no sway with them. I'm of the opinion that there are no independent scientists. In any field.
February 4, 200719 yr Is that why any government report by scientist regarding global warming has to be reviewed, and the language often changed, by the Bush Admin, none that I know of are scientist? They employ corporate "ladies of the night" and everyone is aware of it.
February 4, 200719 yr Is that why any government report by scientist regarding global warming has to be reviewed, and the language often changed, by the Bush Admin, none that I know of are scientist? They employ corporate "ladies of the night" and everyone is aware of it. How dare you! The Bush administration is as pure as the driven snow. If they have altered any scientific conclusions through the micromanagement of report wording or the pressuring of scientists, it was strictly done to rid the world of their corrupt, biased findings!
February 4, 200719 yr How dare you! The Bush administration is as pure as the driven snow. If they have altered any scientific conclusions through the micromanagement of report wording or the pressuring of scientists, it was strictly done to rid the world of their corrupt, biased findings! I know.....what was I thinking??????
February 5, 200719 yr Form 10-Q for EXXON MOBIL CORP taken from Yahoo! Exxon-Mobil Taxes (1Q 2006 in millions) Income taxes $ 7,059 Excise taxes 7,664 All other taxes and duties 11,049 Total $ 25,772 Effective income tax rate 47.4 % If we take less of Exxon's money because of tax breaks, when was that money ever "ours"?
February 5, 200719 yr Do you agree with how every entity who takes advantage of a tax break spends their money? What about the home mortgage deduction? How many people (who take the home mortgage deduction) spend "our" money getting drunk on Friday night. How many drug dealers (who take the home mortgage deduction) use "our" money in their drug business? How many child molesters (who take the home mortgage deduction) use some of "our" many to defend themselves against criminal prosecution?
February 5, 200719 yr Author Do you agree with how every entity who takes advantage of a tax break spends their money? What about the home mortgage deduction? How many people (who take the home mortgage deduction) spend "our" money getting drunk on Friday night. How many drug dealers (who take the home mortgage deduction) use "our" money in their drug business? How many child molesters (who take the home mortgage deduction) use some of "our" many to defend themselves against criminal prosecution? In a nutshell, this entire line of argument is one of the most common red herring fallacies in logic. It is a straightforward case of "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Whether a family blows their tax rebate on alchohol, gambling, prostitution, or any other vice is immaterial to the question at hand. The fact that someone else is "more wrong" does not absolve a person (or group) of wrongdoing on their part. Frances
February 5, 200719 yr Author ... If we take less of Exxon's money because of tax breaks, when was that money ever "ours"? This is pretty basic. If you and I both owe the federal government $1,000 because we had identical incomes and I receive a tax break of $500 that you are not entitled to, I think most people would recognize that I received an advantage. If the legislation for that tax break was based on the supposition that I would donate that tax money to the local orphanage, many people would say "Well, I don't think he deserves the tax break, but at least it is going for a good cause". Two months later, you discover that instead of helping the children down at the orphanage, I spent that money overhauling the engine of the car that I use for my moonshine running operation, well ... I think most people would feel as though that was somewhat inappropriate. Frances
February 5, 200719 yr shooter, I think you're missing the point. The petroleum companies were granted special tax incentives to encourage oil exploration in 2004 and have benefitted from a loophole that has allowed them to pump billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from beneath government-owned waters in the Gulf of Mexico without paying royalties. With oil trading between $50 and $70 a barrel, the oil companies really shouldn't need an economic incentive from the government to find new sources of oil. And I don't know how anyone could reasonably claim that these companies, after posting the highest profits in the history of the world, need any loopholes allowing them to avoid paying royalties to the American people for extracting valuable resources from public areas. I say it is "our" money that has been given away because these were special tax breaks showered on the most profitable companies in the world under market conditions that make such tax incentives wholly unnecessary. It is also "our" money because many of these companies are extracting oil from public areas without paying for it and then refining it and selling it back to us. How outrageous is that?
February 5, 200719 yr This all sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me. Big brother that is watching , listening and probably reading these posts would never cheat nor do harm to their slaves. Buy a piece of land, get a well pump , a generator, have no phone, or internet and then they will leave you alone, ah wait a minute, didnt someone do that at a place called Ruby Ridge. It all comes down to the fact that the rich get richer and the po' (cant afford the other O and R) keep getting po'er or die trying. The sad truth of it is this, and please dont get mad...there are many of you that are very intelligent (I am not) that could run for public service, even if it is on the local level and for some reason you dont. Until good hard working honest people that wants to help the middle class and po' people get invovled then things wont change. But thats no guarantee either, you would probably have Ken Starr investigate your life and they would find something on you that you done when you were in the third grade. Now that I got all that jibberish out of my system, I believe that taxes to a certain extent and tax breaks to certain groups is very much needed to keep this country alive, the problem is (Just guessing) that since the 60's we have fallen into something that our Fore Fathers were totally against "Taxation without Representation". There are a few of us that really would like to stand up to Big Government but we are in a small percentage less 10% if I were guessing and we would love to have our version of a modern day Boston Tea Party but then we would would be hauled off to an Anti-World Government Camp (One of our Closed Military Bases by the Way) for taking a stand. What is presented here on this forum about the tax breaks does make one sick, and you know it to be true but how do we as individuals and groups begin to change it? Or do we just accept it and go on?
February 6, 200719 yr In a nutshell, this entire line of argument is one of the most common red herring fallacies in logic. It is a straightforward case of "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Whether a family blows their tax rebate on alchohol, gambling, prostitution, or any other vice is immaterial to the question at hand. The fact that someone else is "more wrong" does not absolve a person (or group) of wrongdoing on their part. Frances My point isn't that what Exxon or anybody else is doing is right or wrong. My point is that if it is acceptable to call Exxon's money "ours" because they received a tax break then why isn't it acceptable to call every other company's or person's money "ours" if they have received a tax break? Why stop at Exxon?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.