NYT Duped into Helping Push Massive New Energy Taxes

 A hat tip is in order for the Institute for Liberty, which has a response to a New York Times article calling for a massive new tax on the oil industry. The IfL has a rebuttal for each section of the article, which is being used to push for a reverse of cheap energy policies.

Take a look at the NYT article and the rebuttal in blue:

Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade.

This may be the most disingenuous claim of all.  Under rules in place for over 25 years, again the most severe and substantial restrictions and limitations apply to the oil and gas industry in determining the US taxation of income earned outside the country.  As noted above, the US has a worldwide tax system and taxes the income earned outside its borders.  But under that system, it recognizes that it should not impose full taxation on such foreign income because that would amount to full double taxation.  Thus, the US permits an offset for the US taxes otherwise due--only on foreign income--for income taxes already paid on that income to foreign countries.  The tax rules only allow an offset for income taxes paid and, contrary to the assertion above, the tax rules forbid the claiming of an offset credit for a royalty.  Further, and most restrictive of all, the tax rules place the entire burden of proof on the taxpayer to show that no portion of what it claims as an income tax offset is in fact a royalty.

Take a look at the complete article for a better look at what the NYT and the left wing is up to.



Don't forget to comment and to bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

What the Revelations from the New York Times Could Be (Humor)

According to sources, the New York Times is putting finishing touches on a major scandal involving New York Governor David Patterson. Though the details are scarce, we here at Jumping in Pools are speculating what indeed those revelations could be. Please note that these are all speculative, and not necessarily based on hard evidence. Also note that these are supposed to be humorous, so do not be offended.

Possible Humorous Revelations:

Possibility #1: Patterson created the deficit in New York state to fund a nuclear weapon.

Possibility #2: Governor Patterson is not blind and has been faking it his entire life.

Possibility #3: The governor is finally going to stop Seth MacFarlane from ever making a new show again (God I hope so).

Possibility #4: Patterson is stepping down to host his own Reality Show, in which unexpectant participants are thrust into situations that they are not qualified for.

Possibility #5: Patterson will be forced to admit that he once visited upstate New York.

Possibility #6: Dear God, I hope it's the one about stopping Seth MacFarlane.

Be sure to check out our serious predictions.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

NY Gov Paterson Resigning?

Late Sunday rumors began to swirl that New York Governor David Paterson, is on the verge of resigning his office. Paterson, who is already unpopular, faces a yet-unnamed scandal from the pages of the New York Times. Apparently these accusations go well beyond infidelity, which is already suspected.

What the scandal is we don't know right now. But for the NYT to be already predicting his resignation, it must be on the scale of the resignation of former Governor Eliot Spitzer in his infamous prostitution scandal.

If Paterson does resign, will this cause a constitutional crisis? Paterson illegally named a Lt. Governor despite the fact that he is not permitted by the NYS Constitution. If he resigns, would the Lt. Governor be the legit successor?

Bookmark our site!


Consider advertising on our site!

Did You Know That You're Racist?

I know, the revelation came as a shock to me too. I admit it: you're all racists. I had an inkling of it before, but your latest questioning of the President cemented in my mind the indelible fact that you are a racist.

I figured it out once I read a great, insightful article by our dear friend Maureen Dowd.

A great highlight:

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

This proves that Wilson is racist. Now, we don't actually have any statements that Wilson has any racist quotes-- or that he dislikes people of any race-- or that he even cares that Obama is black.

But Dowd clearly used some sort of telepathic power and read Wilson's thoughts. I believe that she heard this:

Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Flaming cross. Some one get me some ice cream. VANILLA ice cream.

I'm glad that we had this discussion. Go lecture yourself.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

I Knew It! People Who Watch Jon Stewart are Idiots!

Well, it's something that's been on my mind for years, but I'm so glad to see it actually confirmed in a newspaper. From the New York Times we find out that Jon Stewart fans are a bunch of egotistical self-righteous buffoons... or at least one-fifth of them.

According to 'secret media research' done by the geniuses at Comedy Central, at least twenty percent of all of the viewers of The Daily Show or the Colbert Report believe that people think they're cool for doing so. (We'll leave Stephen Colbert out of this because he's actually funny.)

That's right, they think that other people think they're cool for not actually doing anything but sitting there, mouths agape. There's a clinical term for this: college douchebags.

And you know what else drives up the Daily Show's ratings? The fact that it's seen as cool to watch the show, even though it's not funny. True, many college students and pseudo-hippies don't get the material, but if they laugh hard they can belong to something. Besides, they can be persuaded to vote-- even though they're clueless. You know, the best type of voters.

The problem is that many if not most of these viewers then do not watch any actual news because they've already 'been informed' by twenty seconds of a CNN clip that Stewart followed with a frowny face. They believe that since they're now endowed with almighty suave from watching Comedy Central, they can go up to people and shout at them if they don't choke down the Democratic line.

The study asked... ultimately, how important the shows and hosts are in their lives. Seriously, if a stiff like Jon Stewart is that important in your life, you should join a cult.

Bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Say Goodbye to Your Rights: Obama's "Preventive Detention" is Unconstitutional

In response to the New York Times' report that President Obama is "mulling over" the right to incarcerate "terrorism suspects," I can only weep for our Constitution.

Here's the problem, folks. The New York Times reports that this is in response to what is to be done with terrorists from Guantanamo. Although there is an argument that "Preventative Detention" is the same as what President Bush did, there is a clear difference.

President Bush kept terrorists, both murderers and planners, in prison. President Obama, on the other hand, is expanding this power to "suspected" terrorists. Now, I ask you, what is a suspected terrorist? Is it someone who plans to kill innocent civilians? Is it someone who actually has? Or is it what the President wants it to be?

Imagine the power given to the President if he can incarcerate anyone and everyone by simply saying that they pose a national security threat. Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity; who can say that they will not be considered a "threat" if Obama has the power to silence them? And what about you and me? Where are we in all of this?

Our rights are the most important thing the the Constitution guarantees. If the President can jail anyone he wishes, our rights will not exist anymore.

There must be laws the President has to follow. There must be definitions on what terrorists are and are not. We all must be heard, or we will all be silenced.


Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Remember When Obama Attacked McCain for not Using the Internet?

Hopefully you do. If not, here it is:



One, hopefully you know that McCain does know how to use the internet. Second, it is incredibly painful for him to use a computer because the Vietnamese broke his hands on several occasions.

All right, now look at this article by The New York Times. So Barack Obama will probably not use his blackberry, nor the internet... So all that complaining, all that whining, all that "he's out of touch" stuff was, well, moot. I find it quite ironic that Sen. Obama will probably use the internet as much as John McCain when he's President.