It's probably not a smart thing for the military to buy it's oil and gas from overseas, so I guess it has to buy it here or drill for and refine it for itself. I wouldn't be unhappy with the latter.
You believe man is influencing climate change. You believe it is warming and causing the ice caps to melt. Therefore you believe man can influence warming of the earth. If the earth started to cool, and headed towards a cyclical ice age, would you be saying that we should be doing what we can to warm the earth, since you feel we have the ability to do so?
Nope. They don't get any special tax exemptions anyhow. They're treated no different than any business, including the corner laundromat.
carbon dioxide in the air will only continue to rise as south america deforests and china keeps burning fuel if oceans rise 50 feet, the government will bail out the insurance companies and keep all the skyscraper and seafront property owners satiated with mounds of cash for the new waterfront, wherever that my be, the rivers will dry up and create stifling humidity, and the poor will die by the hundreds of millions same old same old
Due to the simple fact that taxable income (for business) is equal to gross income minus expenses. They may lobby for other reasons, but then why shouldn't they? They have both the right to assemble and to redress their grievances to the government. It's faulty logic to think that because they get taxed $100 instead of $110 that they're getting some mythical $10 tax break that's some mythical actual expense by the taxpayer.
How can they take purely economic matters into consideration if the govt. is regulating them? Can't drill in ANWR by decree. Can't run a pipeline to New Orleans by decree. Better get a lobbyist or your interests will all be gone by decree.
Are you kidding, all they do is consider the world in economic terms. They can't drill in a wildlife refuge, which means profit loss and profit loss alone to them. Regulations win.
They feel the need to hire lobbyists. That's consideration of political terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
If they didn't want to make more money by doing things that the American people might disapprove of, they wouldn't need to hire lobbyists. They're "considering" in political terms, but for economic reasons. It's not like they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists for the good of the public. Where is maxiep to say "The only purpose of a corporation is and should be to make money" when you need him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
It seems 82% of the American people APPROVE of the keystone xl pipeline. Have another claim? Who said the only purpose of a corporation is to make money? Its purpose is to benefit its shareholders and not necessarily anyone else. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/06/07/keystone-approval-rate-reaches-new-high/ Harris Poll: 82% of Americans Believe Keystone XL is in the National Interest. http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm...-sf-fundraiser-blames-middle-class-priorities In fact, a just released Pew Poll finds that nearly 2/3's of Americans support the construction of the pipeline. Only 23% oppose it, according to the poll. Even given inevitable flaws in polls, Obama has not shown the kind of courage to run against the political wind with those sort of lopsided margins.
To be more precise, the purpose of a corporation is to provide a vehicle for investment that shields the investors from liability. People continue to invest in Amazon (an example), even though its profits are declining. They invested in twitter and Facebook for years while there were no positive cash flows at all. People invest in utility companies for the dividends, not necessarily expecting growth or higher profits. Fwiw
Polls. Barf. All those do are prove that the discourse on a particular issue has been swayed in the most profitable direction. People approve of the pipeline? Obama is close to approving it? Some PR guru (http://keystone-xl.com/) and a couple hundred lobbyists all get bonuses. And for what? Helping the U.S.A. ween its dependance on foreign oil? From the article you quoted:
I see. If 80%+ poll different than your wishes, ignore it or belittle it and claim you know better what they really want. Sorry, not buying it. I don't remember the pipeline ever being sold as a way to get us more cheap oil. It was all about the jobs constructing it, maintaining it, refining the oil, etc.
oh and this: "Opponents responded by questioning the legitimacy of the Harris Poll since it was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute." http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/06/07/keystone-approval-rate-reaches-new-high/
You really think polls reflect what people "really want"? You really think polls can report on the subtlety of any argument, especially one with so many ramifications to so many pieces of a larger puzzle? Sorry, not buying it. http://keystone-xl.com/about/energy-security/
