Obama nixes Keystone XL Pipeline permit.
-
Footwedge
Probably making good coinage...at a tinier tax rate.fish82;1067035 wrote:He must be doing well. I wonder what his tax rate is? -
fan_from_texasFootwedge;1067044 wrote:The author's piece is full of factual errors. She should research her subject before throwing her stones.
What are her factual errors? I find her generally to be very solid on econ issues. -
gut
The chump-change bonuses you get, maybe. For most people bonuses are, first and foremost, a performance incentive/reward. And for large bonuses, especially on the exec level, employees often do have options that enable them to manage their tax liability (such as receiving a large chunk as an employer 401k contribution). It could also have been paid in the form of company stock or options, in which case she can pay a capital gains rate if and when she exercises/sells. It's called deferred comp, and at higher levels employees often have options to defer part or all of the bonus in various forms.Footwedge;1067033 wrote:Bonuses are paid to minimize federal tax liability? Really? Bonuses can and are paid to reduce corporate taxes...not personal income taxes.
I've never seen corporate tax rates as a driver of bonus payouts. That's just ignorant. For starters, the tax treatment is the same whether it's a cash bonus or or normal salary. Second, PROFITABILITY is usually the key determinant in deciding if bonuses will be paid. I mean, you do realize it's more costly to the corporation to pay a bonus then the additional taxes they'd incur from the incremental profits? That's a rhetorical question - we all already know the answer. -
jmog
Same here, after federal, state, local, etc taxes out of my bonuses I take home barely more than half of any bonus.fish82;1067036 wrote:Agreed. Every bonus I ever received had the **** taxed out of it...If I was lucky, I take home half. -
QuakerOatsThe Job-Killer President strikes again ----- this time First Energy will shut down 6 power plants specifically because of obama's EPA and their radical agenda. Hundreds will lose their jobs in Ohio and PA. It is perhaps the only political rhetoric that this president is making good on: he said he would bankrupt the coal industry and he is well on his way to doing so by FORCING coal-generated plants to close.
Change we can believe in ...... -
QuakerOatshttp://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ener1-parent-obama-backed-green-company-files-bankruptcy/story?id=15456414
Unbelievable. But remember, this guy does have intellectual superiority. -
Abe Vigoda
I ran across this interesting piece this past weekend. I think it is worth checking out, politics aside.
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html?mode=story -
dwccrew
Eh, sounds like a guy that is pissed about losing his job. This would still have to pass EPA and OSHA standards, it's not as if the government wouldn't be inspecting it with a fine tooth comb.Abe Vigoda;1097841 wrote:I ran across this interesting piece this past weekend. I think it is worth checking out, politics aside.
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html?mode=story -
Footwedge
I think the author's point is that the inspections were not done as they were supposed to have been done.dwccrew;1098101 wrote:Eh, sounds like a guy that is pissed about losing his job. This would still have to pass EPA and OSHA standards, it's not as if the government wouldn't be inspecting it with a fine tooth comb.
I know nothing about environmental issues as it relates to crude oil processing....but I have worked for fortune 100 pharmaceutical companies....and profit ALWAYS transcends accurate data on prescription drug info.
In our society where oligopolies rule the roost, the small whistle blower is like a picnic ant at a barbecue. Too many people making 200K or more will turn a blind eye regarding indescretions. -
gut
That and whistleblower laws are usually more effective in protecting your job if you come forward BEFORE being fired.dwccrew;1098101 wrote:Eh, sounds like a guy that is pissed about losing his job. This would still have to pass EPA and OSHA standards, it's not as if the government wouldn't be inspecting it with a fine tooth comb. -
QuakerOatsThe over-3 year study by our own government rendered the project safe; read the report.
obama nixed it purely for political reasons.
Construction on the Oklahoma-Texas segment is going to begin anyhow, as announced today by TransCanada --- doesn't need dumba**'s approval since it will not cross border. -
Abe Vigoda
No way Obama nixed it for political reasons. He had a lot more to lose than win. I can't believe you at least cant see that. What are his benefits? The environmental wackos would never vote Republican no matter what. That leaves the independents he has to be concerned about, and I bet the majority would be for the project.QuakerOats;1098896 wrote:The over-3 year study by our own government rendered the project safe; read the report.
obama nixed it purely for political reasons.
Construction on the Oklahoma-Texas segment is going to begin anyhow, as announced today by TransCanada --- doesn't need dumba**'s approval since it will not cross border. -
QuakerOatsWell, he said he nixed it because the repub's didn't give him enough time to study it. Now, everyone on the planet knows that is a cop-out lie ......... so, please enlighten us.
My guess is, if he determines just prior to the election that he needs more votes to win, he will turn around and approve it, saying something like ---- "I told them they needed to make it safer and insure the environment was protected. I have been assured they have done so. So, today, I am giving approval for the proejct which will create 40,000 [union] jobs, and help bring gas prices down for 'working' families."
Mark my words.
What a snake.
Change we can believe in... -
Abe Vigoda
Simple question, what votes will he gain by delaying the project? I am not buying your last post.QuakerOats;1099142 wrote:Well, he said he nixed it because the repub's didn't give him enough time to study it. Now, everyone on the planet knows that is a cop-out lie ......... so, please enlighten us.
My guess is, if he determines just prior to the election that he needs more votes to win, he will turn around and approve it, saying something like ---- "I told them they needed to make it safer and insure the environment was protected. I have been assured they have done so. So, today, I am giving approval for the proejct which will create 40,000 [union] jobs, and help bring gas prices down for 'working' families."
Mark my words.
What a snake.
Change we can believe in... -
gut
Could be a card he's holding to play later. He gets attacked on jobs and they point to the pipeline, then he reflects the attack pushing it through citing safety concerns and uses it to go on the attack over environmental issues. Would be a nice magic trick to deflect debate over his jobs record into green and the environment. Be the same thing if they go after his energy policy. And if it's Romney and he brings up Solyndra, Obama is going to say "well, didn't some of your PE investments flop?"Abe Vigoda;1099255 wrote:Simple question, what votes will he gain by delaying the project? I am not buying your last post. -
Little Danny
QuakerOats;1099142 wrote:Well, he said he nixed it because the repub's didn't give him enough time to study it. Now, everyone on the planet knows that is a cop-out lie ......... so, please enlighten us.
My guess is, if he determines just prior to the election that he needs more votes to win, he will turn around and approve it, saying something like ---- "I told them they needed to make it safer and insure the environment was protected. I have been assured they have done so. So, today, I am giving approval for the proejct which will create 40,000 [union] jobs, and help bring gas prices down for 'working' families."
Mark my words.
What a snake.
Change we can believe in...
Yep. -
BGFalcons82
It isn't about votes as much as it's about ideology and mobilizing his base. It's about his unending desire and passion to promote and provide "Green" energy and jobs. The "Green" movement is certainly solidly behind him and they bring a lot of energy and dollars to his campaign. If he allowed this pipeline, he'd be a sure turncoat to them. While they'd never vote for any of his opponents, they would show their disdain by not campaigning and not showing up on election day. The conservatives did the EXACT same things in the 2006 Congressional races and 2008 when Bush and the RINOs became the Dem-Lite party. They objected by staying home.Abe Vigoda;1099255 wrote:Simple question, what votes will he gain by delaying the project? I am not buying your last post.
Barry's 3+ year assault on the coal industry, his banning of drilling permits, his offshore bans, his anti-drilling stances on ANWR, his Cap-and-Trade policies, his handouts to the Solyndras of the country (there are literally dozens of his hand-picked "green" companies failing) and his desire to see, "energy costs necessarily skyrocket" shows us all what he believes. Turning down the Keystone pipeline wasn't the first time he chose "Green" over jobs and it won't be the last time neither. -
dwccrew
I disagree. I think the author of the article is bitter for losing his job. I work for an oil refinery and it is very safety oriented and HEAVILY regulated by the EPA and OSHA. The pipelines are no different. This author is a bonehead if he thinks that those 2 agencies are going to allow a company to put something in that doesn't meet or exceed the standards.Footwedge;1098508 wrote:I think the author's point is that the inspections were not done as they were supposed to have been done.
I know nothing about environmental issues as it relates to crude oil processing....but I have worked for fortune 100 pharmaceutical companies....and profit ALWAYS transcends accurate data on prescription drug info.
In our society where oligopolies rule the roost, the small whistle blower is like a picnic ant at a barbecue. Too many people making 200K or more will turn a blind eye regarding indescretions.
As Gut stated, this project was deemed safe. I think, my opinion of course, that Obama is waiting until closer to election time to approve this project and then he can use it as a claim of creating jobs. Pretty slick move actually. -
Bigdogg
No need to mobilize the masses the pitfull bunch of Rebublican canadates area doing that for him with their stupid social issues and attacks on woman reproductive rights.BGFalcons82;1099525 wrote:It isn't about votes as much as it's about ideology and mobilizing his base. It's about his unending desire and passion to promote and provide "Green" energy and jobs. The "Green" movement is certainly solidly behind him and they bring a lot of energy and dollars to his campaign. If he allowed this pipeline, he'd be a sure turncoat to them. While t" hey'd never vote for any of his opponents, they would show their disdain by not campaigning and not showing up on election day. The conservatives did the EXACT same things in the 2006 Congressional races and 2008 when Bush and the RINOs became the Dem-Lite party. They objected by staying home.
Barry's 3+ year assault on the coal industry, his banning of drilling permits, his offshore bans, his anti-drilling stances on ANWR, his Cap-and-Trade policies, his handouts to the Solyndras of the country (there are literally dozens of his hand-picked "green" companies failing) and his desire to see, "energy costs necessarily skyrocket" shows us all what he believes. Turning down the Keystone pipeline wasn't the first time he chose "Green" over jobs and it won't be the last time neither. -
Footwedge
An opposing view on the supposed safety standards.dwccrew;1099605 wrote:I disagree. I think the author of the article is bitter for losing his job. I work for an oil refinery and it is very safety oriented and HEAVILY regulated by the EPA and OSHA. The pipelines are no different. This author is a bonehead if he thinks that those 2 agencies are going to allow a company to put something in that doesn't meet or exceed the standards.
As Gut stated, this project was deemed safe. I think, my opinion of course, that Obama is waiting until closer to election time to approve this project and then he can use it as a claim of creating jobs. Pretty slick move actually.
http://tcktcktck.org/2011/08/nrdc-clarifying-facts-keystone-xl-pipeline-yellowstone-river-oil-spill/ -
dwccrew
It doesn't surprise me that an environmental group would oppose such a project. They based their article of a NRDC finding. The article is noted, I still don't believe that this pipeline would be anymore dangerous than TransCanada has advertised. JMOFootwedge;1099808 wrote:An opposing view on the supposed safety standards.
http://tcktcktck.org/2011/08/nrdc-clarifying-facts-keystone-xl-pipeline-yellowstone-river-oil-spill/ -
BGFalcons82
Please explain your post vs. the thread title. Is there a hidden link between reproductive rights and a pipe full of oily goo that I'm missing?Bigdogg;1099670 wrote:No need to mobilize the masses the pitfull bunch of Rebublican canadates area doing that for him with their stupid social issues and attacks on woman reproductive rights.
-
believer
Only if it's partial birth.BGFalcons82;1099830 wrote:Please explain your post vs. the thread title. Is there a hidden link between reproductive rights and a pipe full of oily goo that I'm missing? -
QuakerOatsFootwedge;1099808 wrote:An opposing view on the supposed safety standards.
http://tcktcktck.org/2011/08/nrdc-clarifying-facts-keystone-xl-pipeline-yellowstone-river-oil-spill/
Yeah --- we have no experience with pipelines or safety:
-
Abe Vigoda
I think he means that Obama did not need to motivate the base by the lame attempts by the Republicans to force the pipeline issue now when there are legitimate concerns regarding the environmental issues. The social issues being brought up by the Republican party now will do more to mobilize the democratic base than anything Obama's re-election team could have ever dreamed up and hoped for on their own.BGFalcons82;1099830 wrote:Please explain your post vs. the thread title. Is there a hidden link between reproductive rights and a pipe full of oily goo that I'm missing?