Ursus and the Russian call the shots; I'm terrified of them.kalm wrote:We lose an hour coming over the pass. You could have accommodated us by starting an hour later.Grizalltheway wrote:klam: since you're obviously not busy, get your ass over to Missoula in time for lunch.
East Pacific NW bias.
Oh, well in that case I don't blame you. You are forgiven.Grizalltheway wrote:Ursus and the Russian call the shots; I'm terrified of them.kalm wrote:
We lose an hour coming over the pass. You could have accommodated us by starting an hour later.
East Pacific NW bias.
It would seem to depend on what sources you read and believe. Obviously we disagree on which is creditable, but I am quite sure more Republicans are competent in both reading and math than Democrats, even though I am still a registered Democrat....ASUG8 wrote:Read up.kalm wrote:
Conks...shitty at reading and math.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ ... est_t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://chrisbanescu.com/blog/2008/12/us ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
LeadBolt wrote:It would seem to depend on what sources you read and believe. Obviously we disagree on which is creditable, but I am quite sure more Republicans are competent in both reading and math than Democrats, even though I am still a registered Democrat....ASUG8 wrote:
Read up.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ ... est_t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://chrisbanescu.com/blog/2008/12/us ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Grizalltheway wrote:Ursus and the Russian call the shots; I'm terrified of them.kalm wrote:
We lose an hour coming over the pass. You could have accommodated us by starting an hour later.
East Pacific NW bias.
According to what? Gonna need some details that Exxon didn't pay anything in taxes in 2008. An article from Forbes on Exxon's 2009 tax bill would appear to make the case that Exxon pays a lot in taxes. And heck, even the talk about doing away with "subsidies" for the oil industry (which in most cases aren't subsidies, per se, since things like allowance for 5-10 year depreciation of capital assets are common for every industry in the US and isn't particularly galling) most estimates only say we could reap maybe $10B-$40B per year.kalm wrote:LeadBolt wrote:
It would seem to depend on what sources you read and believe. Obviously we disagree on which is creditable, but I am quite sure more Republicans are competent in both reading and math than Democrats, even though I am still a registered Democrat....
Effective is the key word here...effective. The effective rate, in other words what corporations actually pay in the US according to the US treasury, cited in the article, was 13.4%. Exxon's effective rate in 2008 was 0% on billions in profit.
I was kidding with my remark about conks but now I'm not so sure.
The original comment and it's an often quoted conk meme is that the US corporate income tax rate is the 2nd highest.GannonFan wrote:According to what? Gonna need some details that Exxon didn't pay anything in taxes in 2008. An article from Forbes on Exxon's 2009 tax bill would appear to make the case that Exxon pays a lot in taxes. And heck, even the talk about doing away with "subsidies" for the oil industry (which in most cases aren't subsidies, per se, since things like allowance for 5-10 year depreciation of capital assets are common for every industry in the US and isn't particularly galling) most estimates only say we could reap maybe $10B-$40B per year.kalm wrote:
Effective is the key word here...effective. The effective rate, in other words what corporations actually pay in the US according to the US treasury, cited in the article, was 13.4%. Exxon's effective rate in 2008 was 0% on billions in profit.
I was kidding with my remark about conks but now I'm not so sure.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysourc ... ome-taxes/
