Why Failin should just shut up

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by huh, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. huh

    huh

    "You may remember that Governor Palin’s great accomplishment was that she had given all that money back to the Alaskan people. Of course, the people of Alaska never paid any income tax in the first place (Alaska doesn’t have one), but Alaska was somehow so flush with money that Palin decided to share some of the wealth with each and every man, woman, and child - working or not working, deeply in need or very rich.

    This annual disbursement from the “Alaska Permanent Fund” has long been standard Alaska practice, but Palin bragged that she gave more back than her predecessors and (in at least one televised speech on her triumphal return to Alaska) promised to do the same for all Americans. At the time, this was touted as the very heart and soul of Republican concern for giving money back to “you, the American people” because “you know what to do with it better than the government does.” That the money had never been “theirs” because they had not paid it in taxes did not seem to be particularly troubling to her.

    The first was that Sarah Palin claimed to have “stood up to the big oil companies” forcing them into open bidding for Alaskan oil and gas reserves and subjecting them to even higher royalty payments on their extractions. This of course looks suspiciously like “taxing corporations,” and we are constantly told (although it is not true) that “American corporations pay the highest taxes in the world, higher than Sweden!” But when a Republican is doing it, that is apparently OK. When a Democrat might raise corporate taxes, that is “socialism.”

    Alaskans were receiving cash repayment because Americans in the lower 48 were paying more for oil and gas than they would have paid if Alaska’s state mineral royalties were lower, and Alaskans had money to spare because Americans in the lower 48 were paying for nearly all of Alaska’s infrastructure needs through earmarked spending, of which Alaska received more earmarked federal dollars in relation to federal taxes paid than any other state. Of course, Governor Palin claimed to be the maverick who would help put an end to earmarks, but that is another hypocrisy.

    Now, we are told that if Barack Obama’s tax plans result in some people receiving “refunds” on tax credits that exceed their federal income tax liability, this would be “socialism,” “spreading the wealth” Soviet style. I guess Alaska, where no one paid any state income taxes and everyone got more than $1000 from the government’s kiddy, must be the most socialist state in the country. “Share the wealth” indeed! I can assure you we received no such “handout” from the state of Virginia, but we did (as a net tax “giver”) help pay for the Alaskan windfall."

    From a left wing writer but none the less he makes good points. Further proof that BOTH demons and redumbs along with the majority of americans who support the graduated tax system. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Joe the idiot who is whining about Obama raising taxes by 3% on the wealthy would have a hissy fit if we moved to a "fair" flat tax where everybody pays 30% across the board. So lets all go ahead and pick our poison because we enjoy all our freedom and democracy by being able to choose from 2 candidates.

    Ron Paul for president! :mad:
     
  2. Are you as stupid as your posts?

    If oil was discovered under Central Park and the NYC contracted with an oil company to drill it out would you not consider some of that risk free profit to be the property of New Yorkers? I would.
     
  3. Wait... so a forestry company owes some of its profits to the citizens because it uses public land? And a mining company owes some of its profits to the citizens because it uses public mined materials? And a manufacturing company owes some of its profits to the citizens because it uses public roads, and public research in making its manufacturing equipment?

    What kind of commie are you, Pabst?
     
  4. huh

    huh

    Dude you can say what you want but it seems like both parties practice socialism. One is more socialist but in the end they are both socialist. The welfare system is here to stay regardless of McCain or Obama so one party accusing the other of socialism seems rather ironic.
     
  5. huh

    huh

    The other problem with this is if NYC used earmarks thus federal dollars...ie some of MY TAX DOLLARS to fund their infrastructure and then kept all the profits from this to themselves then no they don't deserve it. If NYC pays for all this infrastructure from NYC taxes then fine go ahead, but then the fact that checks were written to people that don't pay any income tax or they paid less income tax than the check they received seems awfully like wealth redistruibution Obama style.....
     
  6. You're not getting it. Allowing private companies to use public airwaves or land to produce profits without "kicking back" is socialism for business!!

    If Conoco Phillips etal went up to Alaska and bought the land that would be a different story all together.

    I've mentioned this in many previous posts. I have a MAJOR problem with the FCC granting broadcast licenses to CBS etal-making their "properties" worth billions-yet we the people WHO OWN those airwaves see zilch. You and me should have as much collective right to broadcast on 105.9 FM as anyone else. The licensee is nothing more then than than our surrogate. Not only doesn't he pay us he subjects us to endless paid commercials. Great system. Now you know why the broadcast media is liberal. They're beneficiaries of the greatest socialistic scam around-free airwaves.
     
  7. Truckers pay a MULTIPLE in road taxes than you or me for that very reason. Trucks cause stress on infrastructure that mere automobiles don't. And yes one reason I oppose much Federal spending on research-euphemistically called "partnering" with private industry-is because it's a give away of tax dollars under the guise of "public good." If Big Pharma "discovers" a drug via Federal funding than yes I do think the profits generated should be extra distributed back to government. Unworkable? Absolutely. That's why I OPPOSE government funding for private means.
     
  8. huh

    huh

    Thats fine I agree with you on companies using public "property" to profit and should pay the "public owners" some of the profits. The problem again that I am having is if my tax dollars helped Alaska collect some of its windfall profits then why am I not getting my "kickback"? Instead somebody who paid no taxes is getting a windfall check who apprantly deserves it more than I do because they urinate in Alaska rather than the lower 48 states?

    Plus the higher royalty fees that Palin collected were passed on to us the consumers in the lower 48. Then Palin turns around and writes a check to everybody in Alaska.....essentially it seems like the lower 48 funded the Alaska windfall via the higher oil and nat gas we paid from the oil companies passing along the increased royalties to us........I don't know man, still seems wrong to hear socialist coming out of her mouth.
     
  9. In Colorado we have the opposite...NONE of the oil "shell" money (from the west slope) goes directly to individuals instead the BIG OIL companies get a subsidy from the state which we are trying to repeal and the Oil companies are obviously against it and saying its actually a pass thru tax...sure
     
  10. The 35% corporate rate reflects "your" monetary contribution. Obama likes to mention XOM but they pay about 1/6the cost of war in Iraq by themselves. (27b in taxes vs. a war cost of 150b a year) The duke to Alaskans reflects their lifestyle/nuisance contribution although they clearly benefit by full employment. What if though you lived a few miles from these sites. Wouldn't you feel ripped off to know everyone is getting rich off public land -many who have no stake in your community- and you're getting dick?

    BTW: You're anti-states rights argument would carry little weight with Ron Paul.

     
    #10     Oct 29, 2008