It's finally official: We're doomed

Dogmafood responds to me:

quote:

---

What percentage would that be of the federal budget?

---

Nice try, but that's my question to you. Yes, $110B is a lot of money. But compared to the entire budget, is it an example of tremendous waste?

quote:

---

What is with the hostility?

---

(*chuckle*) "Hostility"? That would require having an emotional investment in you and frankly, you just aren't that important.It's "frustration." Yet again, somebody else jumps into a discussion without doing any homework on the subject. And rather than taking the initiative to look things up, hides behind incredulousness as if that were a justification for his claims.

quote:

---

As you are so fond of pointing out, what does this have to do with the fact that there is plenty of waste in gov't?

---

Forgot your own words so soon? You were whining about crashfrog's statement that the government is efficient. Your defense of that is to trot out a raw number as if that has any meaning.

quote:

---

So what is the point then?

---

That the government is efficient. More efficient than private enterprise.

quote:

---

How is it that a bunch of other people came along and started some very successful businesses doing mostly the same thing?

---

Because they provided controls that the USPS doesn't. It isn't like the Post Office is trying to be the ultimate shipping service. But let's not forget, FedEx was losing $1M a month at first. Yes, many of the aspects that private enterprise developed for shipping such as bar code tracking were folded into the Post Office, but you will note that it is still much more expensive to send something via private carrier than the Post Office. For the service provided by FedEx and UPS, that is often understandable, but there is a reason that the Post Office is able to do what it does to every address out there for as cheaply as it does.

quote:

---

So what is your solution Rrhain?

---

To what? Our current financial problems?Roll back the Reagan tax cuts, for a start.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

Fact: Exxon paid taxes last year

​

...

​

They paid variety of taxes, corporation (income) tax, sales tax, employees tax, etc, etc

---

Logical error: Equivocation.We aren't talking about sales tax or such. We're talking about corporate tax. And not foreign corporate tax but US corporate tax. And Exxon didn't pay any.Yes, in 2009, Exxon paid $7.7B in US taxes through sales-based and other taxes and duties, but they received a $46M income tax refund.

quote:

---

They even paid *income tax* in the *US*.

---

No, they didn't. Exxon did pay $15B in income taxes, none of it to the United States.Instead, they got a refund. Your own source corroborated that. Now, as the reporting of this fact was distributed, Exxon claimed that the reason why is because they overpaid their 2008 taxes and that money was used to pay their 2009 taxes, but that doesn't explain their 10-K filing. Compare their statement to Chevron.Talk about being a hoot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hmmm, so I guess Alan Jeffers of Exxon is just lying then?

quote:

---

Although I came up with that by reading the company’s annual 10-k filing with the SEC, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers assures me that this is wrong, that Exxon did indeed pay substantial income taxes to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, and that it overpaid taxes in 2008. How much? Well, Jeffers says so far he’s not at liberty to disclose that information. That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we.

---

I guess if your claim is that he is lying, then I really must request your evidence...And here is your full statement, again: So, care to back up your statement that the reason Exxon paid no *income tax* to the *US treasury* in 2009 was because the money that should have been paid was instead "funneled into CEO compensation"?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

That very much depends. I can send a 22lb package by Fedex between the UK and US for a tiny fraction of the cost that USPS are able to charge - and that is for a 1-2 day service. And for US to US, Fedex is still much cheaper, if not by such a huge margin. USPS, like Royal Mail, are only really effective on letter delivery.

The US Postal Service's problem is that UPS and Fedex are optimized for transporting and delivering packages and have taken the gravy part of the business away from the USPS. The USPS is left with (stuck with) delivering letters.What would it cost to have UPS or Fedex deliver a letter? They would be treating it and pricing it like another package, albeit a small package.Moose

If the postal service was privatized, the price of regular mail would greatly increase. Also, I think a lot of people probably would not even have home mail service. Do people really think private carriers can or will match the service and convenience of US Mail service? The whole idea that mail service should make a profit is ludicrous.I send packages and mail to South Africa quite often. Mail is very affordable compared to UPS or FedEx. I can send a letter Express mail 5-7 day delivery for $28.95. UPS is over $100. They will get it there in 3 days, but I only need it there in a week.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

Hmmm, so I guess Alan Jeffers of Exxon is just lying then?

---

Wouldn't be the first time a spokesman for a major corporation wasn't exactly truthful with the press, now would it? Nor for Exxon, either, or do you need to be reminded about the Valdez?Again, the claims being made by Exxon regarding their 10-K statement do not jibe with the rest of their tax statements.

quote:

---

I guess if your claim is that he is lying, then I really must request your evidence

---

Why haven't you done your own homework? Go look at the Mother Jones report.

quote:

---

So, care to back up your statement that the reason Exxon paid no *income tax* to the *US treasury* in 2009 was because the money that should have been paid was instead "funneled into CEO compensation"?

---

Already did. Why don't you know this, you who claims to be so knowledgeable?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.