Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Baldy wrote:So much for those "subsidies".

Exxon Mobil - $395 Billion in earnings, paid $146 Billion in taxes: 37% ETR
Chevron - $220 Billion in earnings, paid $85.5 Billion in taxes: 39% ETR
Conoco Phillips - $78.8 Billion in earnings, paid $58.2 Billion in taxes: 74% ETR

It's interesting to compare the burden those big, nasty, evil oil companies carry to the light loads the "progressive" renewable takers like NextEra, Entergy, Xcel Energy, etc. carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

Baldy wrote:So much for those "subsidies".

Exxon Mobil - $395 Billion in earnings, paid $146 Billion in taxes: 37% ETR
Chevron - $220 Billion in earnings, paid $85.5 Billion in taxes: 39% ETR
Conoco Phillips - $78.8 Billion in earnings, paid $58.2 Billion in taxes: 74% ETR

It's interesting to compare the burden those big, nasty, evil oil companies carry to the light loads the "progressive" renewable takers like NextEra, Entergy, Xcel Energy, etc. carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote:So much for those "subsidies".

Exxon Mobil - $395 Billion in earnings, paid $146 Billion in taxes: 37% ETR
Chevron - $220 Billion in earnings, paid $85.5 Billion in taxes: 39% ETR
Conoco Phillips - $78.8 Billion in earnings, paid $58.2 Billion in taxes: 74% ETR

It's interesting to compare the burden those big, nasty, evil oil companies carry to the light loads the "progressive" renewable takers like NextEra, Entergy, Xcel Energy, etc. carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

For those of you who won't read the article, Baldy forgot something: This is over a 6 year period.

Baldy wrote:So much for those "subsidies".

Exxon Mobil - $395 Billion in earnings, paid $146 Billion in taxes: 37% ETR
Chevron - $220 Billion in earnings, paid $85.5 Billion in taxes: 39% ETR
Conoco Phillips - $78.8 Billion in earnings, paid $58.2 Billion in taxes: 74% ETR

It's interesting to compare the burden those big, nasty, evil oil companies carry to the light loads the "progressive" renewable takers like NextEra, Entergy, Xcel Energy, etc. carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Baldy wrote:So much for those "subsidies".

Exxon Mobil - $395 Billion in earnings, paid $146 Billion in taxes: 37% ETR
Chevron - $220 Billion in earnings, paid $85.5 Billion in taxes: 39% ETR
Conoco Phillips - $78.8 Billion in earnings, paid $58.2 Billion in taxes: 74% ETR

It's interesting to compare the burden those big, nasty, evil oil companies carry to the light loads the "progressive" renewable takers like NextEra, Entergy, Xcel Energy, etc. carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

I wonder what this translates into at the pump.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
For those of you who won't read the article, Baldy forgot something: This is over a 6 year period.

Are you saying that some people don't read the articles?

89Hen wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
I wonder what this translates into at the pump.

The other interesting thing is that gas is one of the most heavily taxed commodities to boot.

Gas Taxes/Fees (cpg)
Alabama 39.3
Alaska 26.4
Arizona 37.4
Arkansas 40.2
California 69
Colorado 40.4
Connecticut 64.4
Delaware 41.4
District of Columbia 41.9
Florida 53.4
Georgia 47.8
Hawaii 68
Idaho 43.4
Illinois 62.8
Indiana 61.4
Iowa 40.4
Kansas 43.4
Kentucky 46.2
Louisiana 38.4
Maine 49.9
Maryland 41.9
Massachusetts 41.9
Michigan 61.3 4
Minnesota 46.5
Mississippi 37.2
Missouri 35.7
Montana 46.2
Nebraska 46
Nevada 51.5
New Hampshire 38
New Jersey 32.9
New Mexico 37.3
New York 69.6
North Carolina 57.6
North Dakota 41.4
Ohio 46.4
Oklahoma 35.4
Oregon 49.4
Pennsylvania 50.7
Rhode Island 51.4
South Carolina 35.2
South Dakota 42.4
Tennessee 39.8
Texas 38.4
Utah 42.9
Vermont 43.9
Virginia 38.6
Washington 55.9
West Virginia 51.8
Wisconsin 51.3
Wyoming 32.4

Grizalltheway wrote: Apparently not heavily enough, as our infrastructure is still in shambles.

Down the Drain - How the federal government flushed away the $833 billion stimulus
Reason ^ | May 2013 | Peter Suderman

The stimulus wasn’t sold as a plan to build bathrooms. “We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead,” President-elect Obama said in a November 2008 address. The stimulus, Obama vowed, would “put people back to work and get our economy moving again,” creating between 2 million and 2.5 million jobs. Instead, the economy followed the money right down the drain.

In his New York Times bestselling book Throw Them All Out, Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer revealed that 80% of Department of Energy loans went to companies owned by or connected to President Barack Obama’s top campaign fundraisers.

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama promised to create 5 million “green jobs” if elected president. However, an analysis by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) finds that since 2009, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) $26 billion loan program created just 2,298 permanent jobs, at a cost of $11.45 million per job created.

Bronco wrote:

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama promised to create 5 million “green jobs” if elected president. However, an analysis by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) finds that since 2009, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) $26 billion loan program created just 2,298 permanent jobs, at a cost of $11.45 million per job created.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Bronco wrote:

I realize this probably isn't really even unusual, but there isn't a person alive who shouldn't think shit like this isn't criminal.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I realize this probably isn't really even unusual, but there isn't a person alive who shouldn't think **** like this isn't criminal.

Are we still holding candidates to the promises they make in a campaign? I thought we knew better.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: The other interesting thing is that gas is one of the most heavily taxed commodities to boot.

Apparently not heavily enough, as our infrastructure is still in shambles.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: The other interesting thing is that gas is one of the most heavily taxed commodities to boot.

Gas Taxes/Fees (cpg)
Alabama 39.3
Alaska 26.4
Arizona 37.4
Arkansas 40.2
California 69
Colorado 40.4
Connecticut 64.4
Delaware 41.4
District of Columbia 41.9
Florida 53.4
Georgia 47.8
Hawaii 68
Idaho 43.4
Illinois 62.8
Indiana 61.4
Iowa 40.4
Kansas 43.4
Kentucky 46.2
Louisiana 38.4
Maine 49.9
Maryland 41.9
Massachusetts 41.9
Michigan 61.3 4
Minnesota 46.5
Mississippi 37.2
Missouri 35.7
Montana 46.2
Nebraska 46
Nevada 51.5
New Hampshire 38
New Jersey 32.9
New Mexico 37.3
New York 69.6
North Carolina 57.6
North Dakota 41.4
Ohio 46.4
Oklahoma 35.4
Oregon 49.4
Pennsylvania 50.7
Rhode Island 51.4
South Carolina 35.2
South Dakota 42.4
Tennessee 39.8
Texas 38.4
Utah 42.9
Vermont 43.9
Virginia 38.6
Washington 55.9
West Virginia 51.8
Wisconsin 51.3
Wyoming 32.4

Apparently not heavily enough, as our infrastructure is still in shambles.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Bronco wrote:

I realize this probably isn't really even unusual, but there isn't a person alive who shouldn't think shit like this isn't criminal.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Funding

EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]
According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

Despite the president's support for cap and trade, the bill stalled in Congress. That means the main pot of money intended to create Obama's 5 million green jobs -- $150 billion over 10 years -- doesn't exist.

Obama would have another problem in meeting his original green jobs promise -- it would be difficult to prove he achieved it.

That's because the federal government didn't count green jobs until this year. But two years ago, Congress appropriated money for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to survey businesses and establish a baseline number. The bureau says the U.S. had an estimated 3.1 million jobs related to green goods and services in 2010. Later this year we'll learn how many green jobs existed in 2011. But we do not know how many comparable green jobs existed in 2009 or in the pre-Obama years.

Que Baldy to reject Sourcewatch and Politifact...

JohnStOnge wrote:

Que Baldy to reject Sourcewatch and Politifact...

Well, that was my first exposure to politifact but I don't see any point in citing Sourcewatch when you're trying to attack the organization in question as being biased. That's because Sourcewatch is obviously just as biased as biased can be. Every time Sourcewatch "opens its mouth" its' a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I did not get the impression that politifact is overtly biased either way from reading that one article.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I realize this probably isn't really even unusual, but there isn't a person alive who shouldn't think shit like this isn't criminal.

We can all agree that any of Obama's claims should be met with a high degree of skepticism and mocked at for their failure, but equally disappointing is wholly swallowing "facts" from something called the Institute for Energy Research:

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Funding

EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]
According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/In ... y_Research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's just one of many industry funded "think tanks".

The rest of IER's findings are just as suspect regarding green jobs considering Obama's goal was set for 10 years, relied heavily on Cap and Trade for funding, and the government didn't start counting green jobs until a couple of years ago:

Despite the president's support for cap and trade, the bill stalled in Congress. That means the main pot of money intended to create Obama's 5 million green jobs -- $150 billion over 10 years -- doesn't exist.

Obama would have another problem in meeting his original green jobs promise -- it would be difficult to prove he achieved it.

That's because the federal government didn't count green jobs until this year. But two years ago, Congress appropriated money for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to survey businesses and establish a baseline number. The bureau says the U.S. had an estimated 3.1 million jobs related to green goods and services in 2010. Later this year we'll learn how many green jobs existed in 2011. But we do not know how many comparable green jobs existed in 2009 or in the pre-Obama years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... reen-jobs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Que Baldy to reject Sourcewatch and Politifact....

eagleskins wrote:Never could understand the lobby for the big oil companies. Similar to republicans living in trailer parks voting for George Bush.

Grizalltheway wrote:Apparently not heavily enough, as our infrastructure is still in shambles.