Sarah Palin Shares the Wealth with Alaskans

reply to post by IceColdPro

Originally posted by IceColdPro

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can someone explain... why is Obama a Socialist Communist Marxist when he wants to share the wealth, but Palin, who has put it into practice in her state, criticizes Obama for it?

It's simple. She oversees a state that brings in wealth due to their energy resources.

She gives the money back to the citizens.

Unlike Obama, who asks us to empty our wallets to redistribute.

Simple. Understand now?

If you think that you are going to have to empty your wallets when Obama becomes president then you CLEARLY haven't read his tax or economic policies. It's a shame that you haven't fully evaluated each candidate, I wonder if there is another, more face value reason to which you aren't voting for Obama in the "RACE for the white house"

Really silly, transparent attempt to inject RACE into the discussion, muppet.

Obama first defined "rich" as more than $250K, then brought it down to $200k. Then his lackey Biden brought it down to $150K this week...

Where is the bottom line, I ask? Tax the corps. They will add it into their price of purchase. You will pay in the end and out.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by IceColdPro

 

I don't think it's a race thing.

I think it's a party loyalist thing.

True it shouldn't have been implied, it just stumps me how much of a double standard the republicans have.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

Just stop.

Palin increased the taxes because the oilcos were raping Alaska...

The oilcos are big boys. If it wasn't worth their effort, they would pack up and go home. Obama would make them stay "for the good of the needy".

State Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who supported the windfall tax, said the oil companies " ... were literally printing money on the North Slope. We decided to strike the balance a little bit more on our side."

Read that? A DEM said that...

There's a difference between a dividend and a robbery.

Right... and I guess the financial institutes in this country haven't raped the economy with risky trading and credit flooding.

The FACT of the matter is Obama will raise taxes for the "big boys", whiles providing a tax break for 95% of working families in America, who I think deserve it. This is a fair balance IMHO.

I have no problem with what Palin is doing in Alaska, however, I think it is STILL a double standard that you can claim that there is a difference. IMO neither of them are socialists, but for the same above reasons you label Obama one.

Being fair isn't socialist...

reply to post by IceColdPro

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I have no problem with what Palin is doing in Alaska, however, I think it is STILL a double standard that you can claim that there is a difference. IMO neither of them are socialists, but for the same above reasons you label Obama one.

Being fair isn't socialist...

I don't think you know the definition of socialism. What Sarah did is pure capitalism. She took generated wealth and plowed it back into the people. what Obama wants to do is to steal the wealth from you and give it to me. Big diff there, pal.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by IceColdPro

 

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I have no problem with what Palin is doing in Alaska, however, I think it is STILL a double standard that you can claim that there is a difference. IMO neither of them are socialists, but for the same above reasons you label Obama one.

Being fair isn't socialist...

I don't think you know the definition of socialism. What Sarah did is pure capitalism. She took generated wealth and plowed it back into the people. what Obama wants to do is to steal the wealth from you and give it to me. Big diff there, pal.

This is the definition of Socialism:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Does Obama plan to make all of the corporations and their assets state owned? Does Obama plan to take ownership of your business and redistribute your profit? No, therefore it is yourself who clearly has no idea what Socialism is by definition and this is the main point of my arguement.

Where is it written or where is there evidence that shows that my money will be taken away and then spent on someone else? My taxes won't be raised, infact I will have to pay LESS tax and so will you.

What Sarah Palin has done is taken part of the profits of the oil companies that pay taxes already to Alaska, and she is dividing that money and distributing it evenly to the residents of Alaska. This is a FACT.

If it were Obama that did that in Illinois, you would have a field day and used it as EVIDENCE that he is a socialist, when your own candidate does it, I guess it's acceptable and the right thing to do.

I implore you to read what you wrote in your last comment, because you are just re-iterating my point: "She took generated wealth and plowed it back into the people." - right... sounds like capitalism to me, nothing to see here, move along, back to Obama!

reply to post by IceColdPro


Obama will bring the wheels of industry to a grinding halt with his oppressive tax scheme. Sand in the gears. And you will end up paying.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by IceColdPro

 

Obama will bring the wheels of industry to a grinding halt with his oppressive tax scheme. Sand in the gears. And you will end up paying.

Thanks for your prediction Blossom, but I don't vote based on fear.

The republican motto: "When you can't beat em', scare em'!"

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by IceColdPro

 

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I have no problem with what Palin is doing in Alaska, however, I think it is STILL a double standard that you can claim that there is a difference. IMO neither of them are socialists, but for the same above reasons you label Obama one.

Being fair isn't socialist...

I don't think you know the definition of socialism. What Sarah did is pure capitalism. She took generated wealth and plowed it back into the people. what Obama wants to do is to steal the wealth from you and give it to me. Big diff there, pal.

i personally think that taxes shouldn't be raised, i think the incomes of people in corporations making less then...o say...$50,000.00 a year should immediately get a 20 percent raise, since they are the ones doing most of the grunt work and haven't been able to participate in all of perks, given to the top. i think you should redistribute income from the people that live off the hard work of the underlings.
i had a friend who has an electrical engineering degree, who worked for a silicon valley company, and came up with a way to move electrical current through a intergrated circuit much more efficiently, saving the company millions of dollars a year in production costs. he could not patent it because the company was the only one legally intitled to own it. he recieved a 10K bonus, and the company made millions off his hard work.
he quit after going to court and losing his case, and became a teacher in a technical school where they did not have a legally binding policy of that type of inovation. the wealthy have in most cases made their money off the inovation and hard work of others...by the way does anybody know who the ACTUAL people and individual bank accounts all that 700 billion dollar bailout is being put into?

Originally posted by IceColdPro

The republican motto: "When you can't beat em', scare em'!"

Hah! Exactly

At the third stage they just pretend you don't exist. So be thankful for the replies

Mmmm Fear. It makes the engine run.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
This is a DIFFERENT type of share the wealth.

Oh that's just swell! Now we have to write a dissertation on how Palin's socialism is so much better than Obama's. Hyprocrisy overdose?

Palin's taking $$$ from capitalists and gives cash to residents. If that's not a commie trick, I don't know what is.

And she's a lying hypocrite when she extolls the danger of electing Obama because he's a socialist!


[edit on 29-10-2008 by buddhasystem]

what I actually find funny is that there isn't a liberal on the planet that would give her any credit for being a socialist.

Talk about hypocrisy...
live by the sword, die by the sword my friend.

If she is being "socialist" then at least give her some props for it.. isn't that the goal of the left.. take from the oil companies and give it to everyone else?


[edit on 30-10-2008 by gormly]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Obama first defined "rich" as more than $250K, then brought it down to $200k. Then his lackey Biden brought it down to $150K this week...

This simply isn't true. You have either misunderstood something or are purposely twisting the facts to make a point.

- Biden used $150,000 as an example of a person who would get a tax cut. He didn't say it was a limit of any kind.
- Less than $200,000 income will receive tax CUTS.
- From $200K to $250K income will pay approximately the same taxes.
- Over $250K income will have increased taxes.

That's the numbers Obama has used from the beginning and you're not the only one purposefully mixing it up to create the illusion of a changing policy.

I am not going to debate with you, as you resort to name-calling and low-level bickering, but I wanted to put the numbers out there for anyone else who might be confused.

Originally posted by gormly
what I actually find funny is that there isn't a liberal on the planet that would give her any credit for being a socialist.

I'm not a "liberal", but I did vote for Obama. But I started this thread and I agree with Palin's bill:

See this post on page 2

As far as I know, I am on this planet.

Ya think it's because she is another lying, corrupt, Republican scumbag?

At least she is as stupid as McCain (last in his class...lol), which is why that idiot selected her. She was the dumbest he could find.

Having lived in Alaska for 25 years, I'll say it's absolutely nothing like a wealth redistribution system. The state generates its own wealth through oil revenues. There is no state sales tax or income tax. Public services are paid for through oil income (interest on it, if you want to get technical), and any surplus is divided among the residents. The amount of the dividend every year is dependent on both oil prices and the stock value of the permanent fund (essentially a dividend-bearing mutual fund owned and managed by the state)
Needless to say, theres a good chance it's going pretty low next year. I think after 1987 it dropped to $300/person, which is the lowest I can remember seeing it. Just my 2 cents.

Nathan

i scanned over 5 pages of partisan bickering, and didn't see mention of Alaska being a commonwealth.

In Alaska, the minerals are owned by the state (i.e., the people). She didn't do anything socialist, she just followed state law. Nothing new. Folks there have been getting a "Christmas bonus" for years from the state as part of the minerals dividend.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
i scanned over 5 pages of partisan bickering, and didn't see mention of Alaska being a commonwealth.

In Alaska, the minerals are owned by the state (i.e., the people). She didn't do anything socialist, she just followed state law. Nothing new. Folks there have been getting a "Christmas bonus" for years from the state as part of the minerals dividend.

True, however, this year Sarah Palin signed off an additional $1200 to EACH alaskan resident that goes on top of the annual dividend.

"Gov. Sarah Palin is almost certain to sign the bill to pay Alaskans the rebate. It was Palin, after all, who last month proposed that lawmakers pay out a $1,200 resource rebate as a way for the state to share some of its multibillion-dollar oil revenue surplus with Alaska residents."

The article goes onto say...


"The energy relief package also includes money to expand the state's Power Cost Equalization program, which provides electricity subsidies in rural areas where power costs are much higher than in the state's major city, Anchorage. Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, a lead architect of House budget bills, said the energy relief package should help residents across a vast and economically diverse state. "We did a good job of addressing rural Alaska's needs," said Meyer, speaking of the electricity subsidy. "Suspending the 8-cent fuel tax will help people who drive a lot in the urban areas." Many lawmakers fretted over distributing $1,200 in free cash to residents. Some questioned whether rich people should get it, whether it was good public policy in an election year, and whether some might use it not for energy but for a big-screen TV set. One lawmaker, Rep. Harry Crawford, D-Anchorage, suggested a good bit of the money might "go up people's noses."


Full Article - I recommend you ALL read it, seems like we all have a little Obama in us after all!

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]

The resources of Alaska belong to the Alaskans, so the profits from Alaskan resources should be given to the people who actually own them, the Alaskens.

Where Obama and his people err is that they do not see the nation as being owned by the people and the government being only to serve the people, they in fact see the nation as the government first and the people servants of it. Sarah Palin is correct in giving the people their own money back. She realises that she works for them.

Taking my money from me to give it to you is not only theft by tyranny, but against individual freedom. They call it Socialism. The government has no duty or right to take my hard earned money from me. And I would go further to say that the profits the Federal government gets from offshore drilling should be distibuted back to the people of the respected States from which it was taken, and that the States should return all of it to the people of each State.

Taxation is made for the purposes of operating the government, the national defense, etc. not for giving welfare checks to people who don't earn paychecks nor want to.

Originally posted by Fromabove
The resources of Alaska belong to the Alaskans, so the profits from Alaskan resources should be given to the people who actually own them, the Alaskens.

Where Obama and his people err is that they do not see the nation as being owned by the people and the government being only to serve the people, they in fact see the nation as the government first and the people servants of it. Sarah Palin is correct in giving the people their own money back. She realises that she works for them.

Taking my money from me to give it to you is not only theft by tyranny, but against individual freedom. They call it Socialism. The government has no duty or right to take my hard earned money from me. And I would go further to say that the profits the Federal government gets from offshore drilling should be distibuted back to the people of the respected States from which it was taken, and that the States should return all of it to the people of each State.

Taxation is made for the purposes of operating the government, the national defense, etc. not for giving welfare checks to people who don't earn paychecks nor want to.

Well if you read the article I posted above, Palin DID take your money in the form of a "rebate", $1200 a person and added it ontop of the dividend.

Here is a record of dividend payments:

Year Amount
2008 $3,269.00‡ - Palin as governor.
2007 $1,654.00
2006 $1,106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1,107.56
2002 $1,540.76
2001 $1,850.28
2000 $1,963.86
1999 $1,769.84
1998 $1,540.88
1997 $1,296.54
1996 $1,130.68
1995 $990.30
1994 $983.90
1993 $949.46
1992 $915.84
1991 $931.34
1990 $952.63
1989 $873.16
1988 $826.93
1987 $708.19
1986 $556.26
1985 $404.00
1984 $331.29
1983 $386.15
1982 $1,000.00

That's right folks, $1200 dollars of YOUR tax money per person in Alaska, for doing NOTHING.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
i scanned over 5 pages of partisan bickering, and didn't see mention of Alaska being a commonwealth.

You must have just scanned because you missed the part where she is TAXING the oil corporations and spreading their wealth around to the people who did nothing to earn it. Check my sources on page one.

That's NOT Socialism, I agree, but it's the government redistributing the wealth to the people.

Alaska is a state, not a commonwealth.

Four of the constituent states of the United States officially designate themselves Commonwealths: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth (United States)

reply to post by IceColdPro


Such taxation was the result that the Big Oil wanted to suck the crude out of Alaskan ground. She said ok, then give Alaska some money for it. She then took some of that money and gave it back to the people, who actually own the property itself.

The difference is this. You have a company that is taking a resource from the ground that belongs to the people. It is the peoples resource and deserve to be compensated for it.

What Obama wants to do is say to Joe the Plumber, who is a trade person, say Sam the Baker who is a small business person. Bot of which take nothing from the people of any State, but purchase it outright from other equals in the society. Joe buys tools and Sam buys flour. Now Obama wants to take some of the money they earned from their skill to get, and take it from them. Then Obama wants to choose who to give Joe and Sam's money to who doesn't deserve to have it.

Can you understand the difference bewteen the two. The people own the State, all of them from the greatest to the least if they are a citizen. Joe and Sam are the sole owners of their own wealth.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Fromabove]

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by IceColdPro

 

Such taxation was the result that the Big Oil wanted to suck the crude out of Alaskan ground. She said ok, then give Alaska some money for it. She then took some of that money and gave it back to the people, who actually own the property itself.

The difference is this. You have a company that is taking a resource from the ground that belongs to the people. It is the peoples resource and deserve to be compensated for it.

What Obama wants to do is say to Joe the Plumber, who is a trade person, say Sam the Baker who is a small business person. Bot of which take nothing from the people of any State, but purchase it outright from other equals in the society. Joe buys tools and Sam buys flour. Now Obama wants to take some of the money they earned from their skill to get, and take it from them. Then Obama wants to choose who to give Joe and Sam's money to who doesn't deserve to have it.

Can you understand the difference bewteen the two. The people own the State, all of them from the greatest to the least if they are a citizen. Joe and Sam are the sole owners of their own wealth.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Fromabove]

Round and round we go....

Now that would be the case, if "Joe the Plumber" (absolutely sick of hearing about this fictional character) and Sam the baker earned over $250,000 in income, seeing that tools and flour would come out of revenue rather than income that wouldn't count, and that the average plumber and baker aren't earning $250,000+ anyway so both Joe and Sam would BENEFIT from Obamas tax breaks.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]