Joe the Plumber hits campaign trail...

They are still making considerable money off of the government, though, and did Palin ever try to overturn this while she was in office? 

Here is a quote from Palin made to a journalist of a magazine: “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Wow...where's Dr. Fun when you need him?

Alaska owns the oil!  They receive payments from the oil companies for the oil.  Alaska operates at a surplus and the money is put into an oil fund which then pays dividends to its citizens.

One more time.  Alaska owns the oil therefore the people of Alaska own the oil.  These are royalty payments!  They "share the wealth" because Alaska owns the resources.

Do you think it is the same as a windfall profits tax?  Because its not.  A windfall profits tax is just arbitrarily picking on a company for doing well and "sharing the wealth".  Exxon has record profits...lets take some money from them and give it to everyone.  Now that is a share the wealth philosophy.  No rhyme or reason other than they are making a lot of money we should get a piece of the action.

What happens when oil prices drop and Exxon (or whoever) starts losing money.  Does the government then subsidize them and fund their losses?  No...that would be socialism.  Thats something else Obama should be hammered on.

Also what happens to the Exxon shareholders?  Lots of pension funds (teachers and auto worker unions too) invested in Exxon.  Its their money...let them do what they want with the record profits.  Lets not let the government take it and decide what to do with it.

and if what Obama is arguing for is technically socialism, then fine, but it's really what this country needs at this point in time. 

So you're admitting you're a socialist?  You might want to read some history books to see how every socialist society ends up.

Quote from: TRabinowitz on October 31, 2008, 09:44:06 AM

They are still making considerable money off of the government, though, and did Palin ever try to overturn this while she was in office? 

Here is a quote from Palin made to a journalist of a magazine: “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Wow...where's Dr. Fun when you need him?

Alaska owns the oil!  They receive payments from the oil companies for the oil.  Alaska operates at a surplus and the money is put into an oil fund which then pays dividends to its citizens.

One more time.  Alaska owns the oil therefore the people of Alaska own the oil.  These are royalty payments!  They "share the wealth" because Alaska owns the resources.

Do you think it is the same as a windfall profits tax?  Because its not.  A windfall profits tax is just arbitrarily picking on a company for doing well and "sharing the wealth".  Exxon has record profits...lets take some money from them and give it to everyone.  Now that is a share the wealth philosophy.  No rhyme or reason other than they are making a lot of money we should get a piece of the action.

What happens when oil prices drop and Exxon (or whoever) starts losing money.  Does the government then subsidize them and fund their losses?  No...that would be socialism.  Thats something else Obama should be hammered on.

Also what happens to the Exxon shareholders?  Lots of pension funds (teachers and auto worker unions too) invested in Exxon.  Its their money...let them do what they want with the record profits.  Lets not let the government take it and decide what to do with it.

Great post and right on the money

Quote from: TRabinowitz on October 31, 2008, 09:49:26 AM

and if what Obama is arguing for is technically socialism, then fine, but it's really what this country needs at this point in time. 

So you're admitting you're a socialist?  You might want to read some history books to see how every socialist society ends up.

I'm not labeling myself as anything, but I do believe the government needs to help the middle and lower class financially, and those in the upper class can afford to still live comfortably by being taxed higher and having some of that money funneled to the middle and lower class.  In my opinion, it really comes down to unselfishness...

Quote from: jumpinjohnny on October 31, 2008, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: TRabinowitz on October 31, 2008, 09:49:26 AM

and if what Obama is arguing for is technically socialism, then fine, but it's really what this country needs at this point in time. 

So you're admitting you're a socialist?  You might want to read some history books to see how every socialist society ends up.

I'm not labeling myself as anything, but I do believe the government needs to help the middle and lower class financially, and those in the upper class can afford to still live comfortably by being taxed higher and having some of that money funneled to the middle and lower class.  In my opinion, it really comes down to unselfishness...

I'm not as anti tax as some people here but what about the guy or girl who works 65+ hours a week and makes 250-300k vs the person who works 35-40 hours a week that makes less.

BTW Didnt Biden say something the other day about 150k people needing to pay more ?

I guarantee Obama/Dem congress raises more taxes than what Obama is trying to sell the public.

Put a sticky on this thread and lets see if I'm right in 4 years. I've been right on Bush for 8 and I'll be right on this also

Quote from: jumpinjohnny on October 31, 2008, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: TRabinowitz on October 31, 2008, 09:49:26 AM

and if what Obama is arguing for is technically socialism, then fine, but it's really what this country needs at this point in time. 

So you're admitting you're a socialist?  You might want to read some history books to see how every socialist society ends up.

I'm not labeling myself as anything, but I do believe the government needs to help the middle and lower class financially, and those in the upper class can afford to still live comfortably by being taxed higher and having some of that money funneled to the middle and lower class.  In my opinion, it really comes down to unselfishness...

if you could tell the people making above $250,00 per year (for the record, this level of income is not even close to being "rich" or upper class, especially in the Tri-State area) that their tax increase would go to the teachers, cops, fireman, social workers, etc. . of the world..   the middle class...    you would not hear complaints...      but when the government tells us we have to pay more taxes so people who don't contribute to the same system as we do can get FREE MONEY, I am going tio have an issue with it...   and please don't make any mistake about it or try to spin it any other way. . Barack Obama wants to give TAX CREDIT checks to a huge segment of the population that doesn't pay any taxes to begin with....    Democrat..   Republican. .   right. . left..    any side of the conversation you like...   giving that money away is taking those who have it and GIVING IT to those who do not...  

Quote from: jumpinjohnny on October 31, 2008, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: TRabinowitz on October 31, 2008, 09:49:26 AM

and if what Obama is arguing for is technically socialism, then fine, but it's really what this country needs at this point in time. 

So you're admitting you're a socialist?  You might want to read some history books to see how every socialist society ends up.

I'm not labeling myself as anything, but I do believe the government needs to help the middle and lower class financially, and those in the upper class can afford to still live comfortably by being taxed higher and having some of that money funneled to the middle and lower class.  In my opinion, it really comes down to unselfishness...

Ok...you're not admitting you're a socialist.  You're just in favor of socialism because if Obama likes it it must be good.  That makes complete sense.

And tax money is already being "funneled" to the lower class.   Its called a graduated income tax rate.  50% of workers don't pay any income tax.   The question is...how much is enough?  How much is "fair"?

AND there already is an earned income tax credit.  Families could get up to $4,824 in refundable credits.  Even if they pay no taxes.  Families that make up to $38,000 are eligible depending on the number of kids they have.  Problem is it encourages families to have kids to get more money and underreport their income/or earn less to stay under the limits to be eligible.  You gotta love welfare reform.