there is a fundamental difference between sharing the resources of your state which would have otherwise laid in the ground and her taking money from other people in her state to give to those who refuse to better themselves.

y'all just don't get it. and you won't until it's YOUR money they're sharing.

Palin is an airhead hack.

Of course she is hot when compared onstage to a cadaver, that is all that really matters to the rightwingdings.

there is a fundamental difference between sharing the resources of your state which would have otherwise laid in the ground and her taking money from other people in her state to give to those who refuse to better themselves.

Yeah! Well said!

Taking money from the oil companies and according to right wing talking points, raising the price of oil and gas for the rest of the United States and then paying off voters in Alaska is perfectly fine.

I remember a time when the windfall profits tax was an evil thing to moonbats on the right.

You don't hear about it being evil so much anymore since Mayor Mooseville did just that up there in the independent nation of Alaska.

You betcha!

Face it Nanc, your candidate IS a SOCIALIST.

You are so easily swayed by palin's bullshit. I never believe you Pubs were that bad. She doesn't have a original thought and you don't either.

mini socialism

riight

keep making excuses

there is one reason and one reason alone you aren't voting for obama

and that is stance on prochoice

call it what YOU will.

but you know it is true

you are a one issue voter
you would rather see america crumble in economic ruin then try to negotiate on abortion to make sure it is used only with 100% pure responsibility

obama has spoken about his desire to try to lower significantly the number of unwanted pregnancies
thus dramatically lowering abortion rates

obama has spoken out his desire to work on a fair bill that will make late term abortion illegal. stop trying to sneak in an end to roe v. wade and just try to accomplish the task of ending late term abortion and helping those that survive an abortion to have a chance at life.

face it nanc
you talk and talk
but you only have one issue

and your stuborness only lays the seeds for division.

Palin's hero is Chavez.

there is a fundamental difference between sharing the resources of your state which would have otherwise laid in the ground and her taking money from other people in her state to give to those who refuse to better themselves.

So if Texas nationalized the oil reserves in the state so that the people of the state collectively owned them, you wouldn't call that socialism?

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

"your candidate IS a SOCIALIST."

Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

I don't know, it is you republicans who are always trying to attach the stigma to the liberals. Surprise surprise, it is not fact.

What a hack of an aritcle!

Precisely how do Alaskans share in the wealth?

How is Alaska's ownership of natural resources structured?

Honestly, this is my first encounter with Olbermann and I must say, the guy is a bigger hack then I even imagined.

Words, especially when reduced to snippets, can be twisted to mean whatever is desired.

Now, If Olbermann had zeroed in on a policy enacted by Palin as governor and then went on to show how her words and actions demonstrated a socialist mindset, then we'd have something here. However, we are only given this piece of shit that flowed from Olbermann's pen.

Palin a socialist? I seriously, seriously doubt it. Anything's possible, but this article doesn't prove shit.

So if Texas nationalized the oil reserves in the state so that the people of the state collectively owned them, you wouldn't call that socialism? - Rcade

Is that what has actually happened in Alaska udner Palin's governance? If so, PLEASE post a thread proving so. Otherwise, you are playing silly and stupid word-games.

So if Texas nationalized the oil reserves in the state so that the people of the state collectively owned them, you wouldn't call that socialism?

#8 | Posted by rcade

Yes, it's kinda hard to put lipstick on this pig!!!!!

call it mini-socialism. move to alaska if you want some of their resource money.

#5 | Posted by nanc

I want to socialize all of the Alabama-based space and defense contractors, you know the ones that design and build all the space and missile technology. Then we can take whatever we want.

Nanc, face it, you can't have it both ways. Either Palin is a dyed in the wool socialist or Obama ain't. which is it?

Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!!

I remember how much the liberals collectively orgasmed when Chavez nationalized (stole) his nation's oil production.

For some reason I suspect Palin's version of "nationalization" differs from Chavez's.

What a bunch of socialist separatists up there in Alaska!

"it is you republicans who are always trying to attach the stigma to the liberals."

Are you saying liberals don't favor a policy that allows the state to own the resources so that the citizens share in the profits when those resources are developed?

Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

It's the hypocrisy. She's making socialism sound like the jackboot of tyranny after building her rep in Alaska by increasing the check each Alaskan gets for their commie oil scheme.

Are you saying liberals don't favor a policy that allows the state to own the resources so that the citizens share in the profits when those resources are developed?

I'm not aware of a single liberal in public office in the U.S. who has advocated nationalizing oil resources.

sorry jeffj
but chavez is a douchewaffle

just like his sister palin
and his brother mccain

maybe you orgasmed when we all became georgians

"Nanc, face it, you can't have it both ways."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Butch has been living it both ways for some time now!

Man by day, woman by internets!

California should be required to follow the same practice, instead of begging for money to pay of the huge budget deficit require them to develop their own natural resources and pay off the state deficit...

palin sounds a lot like vladimir lennon

Redneckville,
Did Nanc turn down your advances or are you just ascared of da women?

"I'm not aware of a single liberal in public office in the U.S. who has advocated nationalizing oil resources."

I didn't say liberal politicians. I said liberals in general. Do you or do you not favor the policy I just described?

y'all just don't get it. and you won't until it's YOUR money they're sharing.

what a maroon.

who's money do you think it is that gets distributed to the residents of Alaska?

Do you or do you not favor the policy I just described?

No. I think oil companies should pay a windfall profits tax and be forced to direct significant resources to renewable energy.

I think oil companies should pay a windfall profits tax

Who gets to decide what does and doesn't constitute a "windfall"?

Do you plan on applying this tax solely to oil companies, or should it apply to all industries?

How far do you want to take your bullshit?

California refuses to develop any of their own natural resources and at the same time has the nerve to beg for a bail out from Washington to balance their state budget. California is against anything that makes sense and has the budget deficit to prove it, why should everyone else have to pay for their ignorant policies. Palin on the other hand has Petro dollars to work with sounds like a damn good idea to me maybe some day California will catch up to Alaska.

Applying a windfall profit tax to oil industries will only vastly increase our oil imports via foreign companies immune from the tax.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

According to Rcade, I guess it's up to the government to decide what is and isn't an acceptable level of profitability.

You wanna develop a radical new technology that could result in untold fortunes? Fuggedhaboutit. Rcade will tax the shit out of anything over 7% and call it a "windfall". Don't bother taking the risk and investing the capital. Fuck innovation.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

#30 | Posted by 101Chairborne

That is probably the only comment on this thread that makes sense.

PS - what the hell is up with your Sabres? They are on fire so far!

"How far do you want to take your bullshit?"

How about all the way to energy independence.
It's nice to know that finally Americans are losing their nonsensical objections to taxing the greedy.
Instead of a windfall profits tax I would prefer to call it a tax on greed.

so then you do have a problem with alaska taking oil revenues and spreading that wealth to the citizens of alaska.

thanks

"Don't bother taking the risk and investing the capital. Fuck innovation."

Or, more correctly, Fuck talking point propaganda paid for by international oil companies that gladly help destroy the economy of the United States for their own greed. Fuck them. TAx the living shit out of them and put America first. It shouldn't be oil companies first, it should really be America first.

Instead of a windfall profits tax I would prefer to call it a tax on greed.

What percentage of profit is too "greedy" for you, Danni?

20%?

15?

5?

Put a number on it.

Are you going to target ONLY "big oil" or does this windfall tax apply to all industries?

so then you wont be voting for palin cause she is for taxing the oil companies and returning that money directly to the citizens? correct?

"No. I think oil companies should pay a windfall profits tax"

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you generally support welfare programs and taxation policies which give refundable credits to lower income Americans. In that case, why not just do what Palin did and hand a cut of the oil company profits to the citizens instead of funneling the handouts through the government via a "windfall profits tax?" Isn't Palin's version a more efficient form of socialism, whereas yours requires the payment of government bureaucrats in between? In the end the money is going to the same place - no?

Klifferd, what is a douchewaffle?

It's truly scary to me that people who exhibit such a degree of economic ignorance can possibly wield so much power.

It's truly scary to me that people who exhibit such a degree of economic ignorance can possibly wield so much power.

yeah like

bush
greenspan
bernanke
etc

I would include cheney but we are not allowed to know what his policies are.

TH,

I agree with you regarding the names you added to my post.

"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."

It looks a lot like the return on the bailout promised by Obama. The main difference is in Alaska the citizens actually finally received a check. Does Obama think that the tax payers of the U.S. will receive a check for the bailout if a profit is returned? Not a chance. The Democrats will have it spent long before it gets that far. Also Obama has not said how the U.S. will actually pay for the bailout. Higher taxes comes to mind. Don't forget Clinton raised taxes a month after being in office and that is after promising a tax cut to the middle class.

"Klifferd, what is a douchewaffle"

its a waffle being used as a douche

"I guess it's up to the government to decide what's an acceptable level of profitability...."

What's JEFF'S stance on service station owners increasing the price of gas 100% or 200% to persons fleeing hurricanes?

I suppose they get to do that? I mean, how dare anyone decide that's too much profit? How dare anyone consider a hurricane a windfall, a piece of luck not associated with anyone's work?

"The Democrats will have it spent long before it gets that far. "

Whereas the Republicans would have had it spent yesterday.

Oh wait...they did.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

#30 | Posted by 101Chairborne

LOL... there's still life left in that one there is.

Zed,

What's JEFF'S stance on service station owners increasing the price of gas 100% or 200% to persons fleeing hurricanes?

I suppose they get to do that? I mean, how dare anyone decide that's too much profit? How dare anyone consider a hurricane a windfall, a piece of luck not associated with anyone's work?

You actually raise a solid point.

Let's look at the numbers though:

Jeff's number: 20%? 15? 5?

Zed's number: 100% or 200%

The windfall profit tax being suggested by Obama is on a margin that is well-below of that of, say, the insurance industry.

You do a good job of adding a little gray, but common sense ultimately prevails.

Truly unbelievable Palin as a capitalist develops the resources of her state and in so doing creates jobs revenue and helps the rest of the country feed it's need for oil. This should be a simple concept for most thinking people unfortunately politics get in the way Palin could come up with a way to turn moose shit into gold and because she is on the Republican ticket liberals would bitterly complain.

1) Develop oil for an oil based economy.

2) Create Jobs developing oil reserves.

3) Put money in taxpayers pockets for selling oil.

Personally I wish Alaska would stop producing oil for a few months let the price go up and see how many liberals embrace the idea of producing oil for an oil based economy.

"The windfall profit tax being suggested by Obama is on a margin that is well-below of that of, say, the insurance industry."

Their accountants make it appear that way with huge executive salaries, purchase of companies, etc.
I don't think we would even be having the discussion if the Anti-trust laws had been enforced since Reagan. Lack or real competition allows for huge profits at our expense. Teddy Roosevelt would be agreeing with me right now. The Trust Buster didn't kiss the oil company's asses as did old Ronnie Raygun who loved oil companies more than Americans.

there is one reason and one reason alone you aren't voting for obama

and that is stance on prochoice

And NANC can't even produce Biblical opposition to abortion.

Obama seems to have the same plan for any and all contingencies raise taxes and I swear it will not effect the middle class baloney, Bill Clinton said the same thing and raised taxes almost immediately. Also where in the hell do liberals get this notion that taxes will never be passed right down the line. If a windfall tax is applied to McDonalds next week the price of a Big Mac will follow, why is this so difficult to understand...

It looks a lot like the return on the bailout promised by Obama....

#43 | Posted by KBM

I think McCain voted for that "socialist" package, too!!

Truths;

1. the climbing dept has to be paid.

2. all the gov't spending has to be paid.

3. money to pay those comes from taxpayers.

4. the debt is to a private company (the fed) and other countries.

Fictions;

1. you can continue the Bush tax cuts without more debt.

2. you can socialize health care without more debt.

3. you can have more wars without more debt.

4. you can have repubs-style socialism without more debt.

Geezer get your facts straight Obama is the Socialist.

"get your facts straight Obama is the Socialist."

But yesterday he was a Marxist!

And the day before he was a Communist!

Is there some kind of ordinance forbidding Republicans from owning dictionaries or history books?

"Obama seems to have the same plan for any and all contingencies raise taxes and I swear it will not effect the middle class baloney,"

He doesn't claim that raising taxes on the wealthy will have no effect on middle class folks....he says quite clearly that it will help the middle class by beginning to pay down some of the debt righties have incurred because of their greed and unwillingness to pay for the wars they chose to conduct. We should all hope that the worst thing that could happen is that we would have to endure an economy like the one we had under Clinton.

"Personally I wish Alaska would stop producing oil for a few months let the price go up and see how many liberals embrace the idea of producing oil for an oil based economy."

#49 | Posted by ATaxpayer

"THE FACTS

"While Alaska is a leading producer of crude oil, it produces relatively little natural gas, hardly any coal and no nuclear power. Its share of oil production has been declining sharply, and the state now ranks lower than Texas and Louisiana. Alaska is the ninth-largest energy supplier in the United States, accounting for a modest 3.5 percent share of the nation's total energy production.
ad_icon

"After nonpartisan Factcheck.org pointed out Palin's error in her interview with Gibson, the governor revised her statement somewhat, limiting it to oil and gas. But data compiled by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) contradict her claim that she oversees "nearly 20 percent" of oil and gas production in the country. According to authoritative EIA data, Alaska accounted for 7.4 percent of total U.S. oil and gas production in 2005.

"It is not even correct for Palin to claim that her state is responsible for "nearly 20 percent" of U.S. oil production. Oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship. The state's share of total U.S. oil production fell from 18 percent in 2005 to 13 percent this year, according to the EIA."

Source:

"Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!!

I remember how much the liberals collectively orgasmed when Chavez nationalized (stole) his nation's oil production.

For some reason I suspect Palin's version of "nationalization" differs from Chavez's.
#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-10-29 09:15 AM"

It's probably more accurate to say "liberals" (and, BTW, "other folks, too") hate her policies rather than her personally. Speaking for myself, I don't like her policies but I find her (personally) to be tragically comedic.

But I digress...

The seeming quandry for JeffJ and Joe only exists because the original premise/assumption is wrong.

GIGO... SURPRISE!

so is this ECONOMIC JUSTICE that obama favors..........

or will that justice just go one way......

Nanc,

"who refuse to better themselves"

obviously you're talking about Shrub, NY Landlords and the other leaches in the Financial Sector that suck 40% of our GNP while cleverly drawing attention away from themselves and towards those born into poverty. Living off inherited wealth these clowns understand the importance of propaganda, but have never worked a day in their lives.

You and a whole bunch of other yayhoos fall for their bullshit and keep their game going.

While war was waged we heard how there was no money for one "socialist program" after another, then suddenly when the silver spoon world vaporizes due to gambling and fraud, Paulson hands them first $8.25 trillion without asking anyone, followed by a trip to Congress asking for $7 trillion while making it clear that this will not be enough. Since the financial sector owns Washington, the money is handed over with no discussion whatsoever of the legalized gambling and fraud that this sector has engaged in.

Go ahead, blame it all on welfare queens, you igoramous.

"Palin said, "We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources."

ALASKA PERMANENT FUND HISTORY

"The Permanent Fund was established through a constitutional amendment approved by Alaska voters in 1976. The constitutional amendment and its supporting statutes set aside at least 25% of certain mineral revenues paid to the State for deposit into a public savings account to be invested for the benefit of the current and all future generations of Alaskans."

Source:

Is there some kind of ordinance forbidding Republicans from owning dictionaries or history books?
#56 | Posted by Danforth

No not at all, it is exceedingly difficult however to keep Democrats from trying to rewrite them however...

"I remember how much the liberals collectively orgasmed when Chavez nationalized (stole) his nation's oil production."

Er...who did he steal it from....Venezuela owned it before Chavez took over. He just changed how it was managed and where the revenue went. It wasn't privately owned in the first place.

You're right, Danni.

That is precisely why business has moved away from Chavez.

So - under Palin, Alaskans "share the wealth."

Umm - doesn't that mean the wealth gets (Gasp! Shudder!) redistributed?

Just askin'.

"your candidate IS a SOCIALIST."

Then why do liberals hate her so much? This sort of thing should be right up their alley.

#10 | Posted by JOE

If you don't know why by now then you will never know.

Alaska was once part of Russia. And they sold it to us very cheap considering all the resources. Can you say "sleeper cell"?

Think about it.

Excuse my tardiness on kaffeeklatsch day. Sometimes I enter late to the damndest distortions of reality ... One candidate for the all-time title is "Chavez nationalized (stole) his nation's oil production." Excuse me, but isn't nationalizing it taking it back FROM those who stole it and returning it to the people? herm

"California is against anything that makes sense and has the budget deficit to prove it,"

In other words, California still cares about the world around it. It's too damned bad that the greedy red staters get to take advantage of this. herm

In other words, California still cares about the world around it.

#70 | Posted by herm

FF for HERM!

Is there some kind of ordinance forbidding Republicans from owning dictionaries or history books?

#56 | Posted by Danforth

It's in the Bible.

The tough part for you haters on the left is that Sarah survived your viciousness, your attacks, the mainstream media attempts to bury her - the sexism, the lies all have just not worked - she has come back stronger than ever and makes the Katie Couric gotcha job reflect more on Katie than Sarah in retrospect.

You just can't bear a strong woman who doesn't share your left wing views and you women are the biggest haters - bizarre.

Sarah's star is on the rise again -

BTW -seeing as you seem to be ok with sexism now on the left you must admit, Sarah, Elizabeth from the View and Ann Coulter are all way hotter than what you lot have (Hillary, Nancy and Michele Butch Obama)

nieman marxist.

Enough about Tax, or Health Care or National Security for a moment - let me ask the real question that nobody has had the courage to ask - why are republican women so much hotter than their counterparts on the left?

Ann, Elizabeth, Sarah, Cindy....

"Now, because he knows that his economic theories don't work, he's been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book.

Lately he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll-back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class.

I don't know what's next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

While I have little problem with the way Alaska gives a cut of oil and gas profits back to its residents, I hope that the residents of Alaska are aware that sometime in the not-so-distant future the gravy train is going to be derailed. Alaska produces approximately 16% less oil every year, and Anwar will do little to stop the slowing production.

In Colorado, oil and gas companies are given tax credits, which is to say they are subsidized by the taxpayers to relieve at least a portion of their tax liabilities. These credits are given under the premise that if these companies are not subsidized they will cease production and pull their jobs from the state. If this were true, why haven't they pulled out of Alaska, who has done the exact reverse and actually strips oil profits to pay its residents?

The other reason we've been given for why these credits should continue is that the companies would need to pass these costs to the consumer if they didn't receive the subsidies. That's very unlikely, as the majority of gas produced in Colorado is piped out to other states. So in fact, we are subsidizing gas for people who don't even pay taxes here.

Again, I have little problem with Alaska redistributing some oil profits to its residents, but I do have a problem with the double standard that's carried by republicans, that it's okay to take profits from oil companies in some places, but it's not okay to take away oil companies welfare in others.

JeffJ,
Oil companies seem to make a profit whether oil is $135.00 per barrel or $65.00 per barrel. The public may be told that the profit margin is approximately 7%, no matter the price of oil. Do you believe this? I agree that many of us "exhibit a degree of economic ignorance". Now I'm saying; especially YOU. I would also say that the oil companies are going to exploit our ignorance for as long as they can get away with it. Corporate profit margins may be manipulated to an extremely wide degree through salaries, bonuses and many other factors. Before you jump to the defense of a poor corporation claiming only a 7% profit margin, perhaps YOU need to work on some education.

"...why are republican women so much hotter than their counterparts on the left?'

Ann hot? Not even Spider Woman Malkin. Was there ever a first lady prettier than Michella Obama? Even Jackie Kennedy looked plastic alongside Michelle. herm

Was there ever a first lady prettier than Michella Obama?

We have never had a first lady named Michella HERM. Now Michelle Obama is not pretty - at best she is soft on the eyes.

"...why are republican women so much hotter than their counterparts on the left?"

Whaa?

If by "hotter" you mean "bat shit crazier" or "stupider" then Spud would hafta concur.

Coltface?

Have you noticed those guy hands and adam's apple?

As another poster pointed out...

"that's a man baby-yeah!"

Michelle Malcontent the self-loathing anchor baby?

Michele - Jackie O version 2 - you gots to be kidding my friend - now Jackie was beautiful and classy while Michele is more like Lou Ferrigno version 2...

Honestly, this is my first encounter with Olbermann

Is life comfortable under your rock?

"And Alaska - 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."

quotation by Sarah Palin, Socialist

Now Michelle Obama is not pretty - at best she is soft on the eyes.

==========================

And what would you call Lizard Cindy?

one word...lame!

why are republican women so much hotter than their counterparts on the left? Ann...

You got a thing for adam's apples?

Don't forget Clinton raised taxes a month after being in office and that is after promising a tax cut to the middle class.

oofa.

Only had one cup of coffee so far...

AXIOM

"I don't own a television."

That's not something we hear very often. I don't mean to question your personal choice so is there another reason you don't own a TV?

Jus' askin'

I agree that many of us "exhibit a degree of economic ignorance". Now I'm saying; especially YOU. I would also say that the oil companies are going to exploit our ignorance for as long as they can get away with it. Corporate profit margins may be manipulated to an extremely wide degree through salaries, bonuses and many other factors. Before you jump to the defense of a poor corporation claiming only a 7% profit margin, perhaps YOU need to work on some education.

LOL!

Apparently I am not the only one seeing the political corporate hackery of Jeff J.

Depending on where the oil is and how difficult it is to pull from the ground is the reason only 7% margin is shown. We have far far more oil than most people think, in fact we will have more oil in 20 years than we have now but that is the best kept secret. About 7 months ago I showed Joe this fact but was bashed because I said 25 years and the chart forecasts only went to 23 years.

"Taking money from the oil companies and according to right wing talking points, raising the price of oil and gas for the rest of the United States and then paying off voters in Alaska is perfectly fine."

#3 | Posted by 726

I am so confused. First, I recall during the summer the left was posting that opening ANWR would not help because Alaska's oil was being transported to the lower 48, transferred to tankers in California, and shipped to China. If that was true, how did Palin's 'taxing' the oil companies increase the price of oil and gas to the rest of the country? Additionally, I am curious as to the logic of how when Palin taxed the oil companies, the price of oil and gas would be increased to the rest of Americans, but when the simian candidate institutes a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies, it will NOT increase the price paid by Americans for oil and gas.

Dem logic I guess.

I am outraged that anyone would refer to McCain as a "simian."

Reverse Racist asshole.

" If that was true, how did Palin's 'taxing' the oil companies increase the price of oil and gas to the rest of the country?"

When one producer increases price, it makes it easier for competitors to increase price.

Didn't you ever take an Econ class?

Gee Dan, I see what you mean. If Palin's tax increased the cost of oil that was being sold to China, I can see how that would increase the price we pay in the US for oil. So, why then does the lower price paid in Iraq, Saudi, etc., not flood across the ocean to here? I mean, why sell gasoline in Baghdad for pennies per gallon when you can sell it in the US for $5.00 per gallon? Or applying your logic, why wasn't Iraq also paying $5.00 per gallon?

Sam,

After seeing the president referred to as "Chimp", "Chimpy", etc. for eight years, I am not going to allow some bigot on the left to keep me from correctly pointing out the monkey like appearance of the simian candidate. I will try to force myself to show at least as much respect to Curious Barrack as the left has shown to the current President. I fully expect that I won't have to wait very long before the rest of the country realises that the Simian is merely the fulfilment of the Prophesy of Wright...God will damn America. Our standard of living, our freedoms, our rights, our health care system, the American dream that hard work equals success...all will be gone.

That's not something we hear very often. I don't mean to question your personal choice so is there another reason you don't own a TV?

There are a few actually...

1. Cable stations will not provide service a la carte. I don't want MTV. I couldn't care less about a plethora of other channels. I want Discovery, Cartoon Network, Science Channel and History Network. Don't want any others. They won't provide just those channels, so I choose not to use their service. You know? Capitalism.

2. For a while, about 5 or 6 years ago, I was unable to afford cable, so I did without. During that time, I gained a healthy respect for books that, during highschool, I had breezed through...which lead me to read other books. Now I could afford cable, but it just doesn't appeal to me.

3. Finally, I've come to the conclusion that television is a tool for the distribution of propaganda. It's not a matter of who is in charge. They'll tell you who is in charge. This election is a prime example of that. McCain didn't have a shot in the dark until the media decided he did. Obama would have been just another also-ran, except for the fact that the media did its level best to prop him up while discrediting the other possible candidates. I didn't want to turn this into a political reply, sorry about that.

"So, why then does the lower price paid in Iraq, Saudi, etc., not flood across the ocean to here?"

It does. All the prices are relative. Ask yourself: If the price of a gallon of gasoline in Saudi Arabia went up tenfold...wouldn't your prices go up dramatically as well?

Dan,

That didn't answer my question...by your logic, why is gasoline not $5.00 in Iraq? After All, the price going up in one place (China) makes it easier for competitors to raise prices in the US?

WOW, Acitizen.
It's not every day (outside the deep South) that a man will openly declare himself a racist. I remove my trucker's cap with the Confederate flag on it in your honor.

Sam,

No such declaration was made. If pointing out that a man looks like a monkey is racist, how can the liberals here assembled that call the POTUS "chimpy" or some derivation thereof live with themselves? More over, How can you think that someone that admits that the Prophet Wright is going to be proven correct is a racist?

I suppose the use of words like "-ists" and "-phobe" to intimidate someone into backing away from a position or an action should be the first universal indicator that the speaker is an intellectual lightweight.

Posting this from my phone and didn't have time to read all the replies...

Alaska's model is FAR from socialism. It is more akin to a royalties system. The resources are owned by the State... NOT the companies that develop those resources.

Unlike what Chavez did which was to take over the oil companies completely, Alaska instead simply takes a small (realitively speaking) share of the profits.

In Venezuela NONE of the profits belong tothe companies because the companies themselves now belong to the government.

To try and compare the two is a desperate indirect admission that the "socialism" tag is sticking to Obama and doing damage to his campaign mainly because there is no truthful argument to counter it. Instead his devoted sheeple have to resort to obviously lame attempts like this to stop the bleeding.

I find it endlessly amusing that this exposure of Obama's socialism has tied the libs in such knots that the have to resort to such transparently immature and obviously false arguments as a "I know you are but what am I" defense.

You musta really cracked up at Reagan's EIC.

What is EIC?

The Earned Income Credit from that famous Marxist Ronald Raygun ZAP!

earned income credit

Thank you, gentlemen.

EIC has a couple key words in it that you are ignoring:

"Earned Income"

You can't compare Obama's so-called "credit" and EIC and keep a straight face.

EIC credits back to the worker money they already earned that was taken by the payroll tax.

Obama's plan gives the worker money that was earned by someone else.

Letting people keep what they worked for isn't socialism. Taking a Giving them what someone else earned is.

Taking a pecentage in royalties from a company in return for allowing them to develop your states resources isn't socialism. Taking over those companies for the government so you can keep all the profits is.

How can you argue that Obama isn't socialist if you have such a fundamental problem understanding what socialism is in the first place?

"EIC credits back to the worker money they already earned that was taken by the payroll tax."

Not necessarily true.

"Obama's plan gives the worker money that was earned by someone else."

Where?

"How can you argue that Obama isn't socialist if you have such a fundamental problem understanding what socialism is in the first place?"

Let's see...Bush's Bailout: socialism or not?

it is just so fucking amazing to hear the Remoronicans throw around words like Marxism, Communism, Socialism, as though they have the slightest CLUE what those things are and here they have their favorite bimbo telling them point-blank that she supports the REAL thing and they just still don't get it! Hey you assholes, Obama isn't a fucking socialist, you people just keep throwing that word back and forth because it gives you something to rally around and because you hope like hell that it'll scare enough idiots like yoursleves into voting against Obama on Teusday. NOBODY is voting for McSame, that's for sure!

"Obama isn't a fucking socialist"
====================

Ummm....He sure as hell IS a socialist. Thats why the left loves him so.

FACT!

Bellasappa

Bellasappa:

Keep telling yourself that. I won't confuse you with the facts.

Danforth:

1. You say it isn't necessarily true... Then neglect to say how It is false. Even then your statement implies that it is generally true at least in intent.

2. Easy. Most of the people benefitting from Obama's plan already get all their income tax back. Add in the EIC credit and that covers payroll taxes. SSI they are supposed to get at retirement. What is left that they earned themselves is he "crediting" back?

Answer: He isn't. He is playing at "Robin Hood" by taxing the rich and then giving the money to those that didn't earn it.

3. I didn't support the bailout and I don't have to agree with McCain on everything to feel he is still much better than Obama.

The bailout was too close to a socialist solution to suit me. I think McCain caved to pressure of public perception.The economy would have taken a beating in the short-term but would have been stronger in the long-term.

The beauty and danger of a free market is that you are free to climb as high as you abilities will take you. But with that freedom to succeed under your own power you MUST also have the freedom to fail under your own power. To try to limit the potential of failure inevitably also reduces the potential of success.

The lesson that should have been driven home by the collapse of the USSR is that socialism ONLY breeds mediocrity and ultimately catastrophic failure.

"You say it isn't necessarily true..."

You've deigned it to be a return of payroll taxes. Since it's not based on that, but one could claim they were payroll taxes, that led to the caveat. If your scenario were correct, the EIC would top out at the payroll taxes withheld. It doesn't, especially in scenarios with children.

Danforth,

You say it doesn't cap out... And you might be corect. What days do you base this claim on? After all payroll taxes are payed throughout the year. Regardless, it was Regan's intention that it should compensate for those taxes. Now, if the EIC gives more than that can you concretely say that the plan is EXACTLY as Regan proposed it and wasn't added to be the Democratic controlled Congress?

I would support capping it if it isn't already to ONLY what was paid in payroll taxes. Would you? Would Obama?

Either way that still doesn't address Obama's socialist plan or my rebuttal to the claim that Sarah Palin is socialist.

If Barack Obama is a socialist, then Milton Friedman is a socialist on steroids...

"In America, advocacy for a basic income began in the period just after the Second World War. In 1946, Nobel laureate economist George Stigler originated the idea of a Negative Income Tax (NIT), and in 1962 neoliberal economist Milton Friedman, also a Nobel winner along with his wife, Rose Friedman, refined and popularized the idea in their book Capitalism and Freedom. The NIT concept is elegantly simple: if your income falls below a certain threshold, you receive a refundable tax credit that is a percentage of the shortfall. Let's say that the threshold is set for $5,000, and the negative tax at 50 percent. If you only earned $3,000, your credit would be 50 percent of the difference between $5,000 and $3,000, bringing your total income up to $4,000. If you earned nothing, your credit would be $2,500, effectively establishing that as the minimum income."

"What days do you base this claim on?"

I've seen single mothers and poor parents get more in EIC than payroll taxes.

"can you concretely say that the plan is EXACTLY as Regan proposed it and wasn't added to be the Democratic controlled Congress?"

I don't know the history well enough to say one way or the other.

"I would support capping it if it isn't already to ONLY what was paid in payroll taxes. Would you?"

One of the problems with government assistance, especially for the working poor, has been coordination and overlap, and the resultant duplicated overhead costs. EIC has proven to be a very cost-effective way to aid those on the margins, who we want very much to keep working. I'm not going to pretend it's perfect, but I've read numerous analyses concluding it's a very sane way to help out.

" that still doesn't address Obama's socialist plan or my rebuttal to the claim that Sarah Palin is socialist."

I don't see any socialist plan coming from Obama, other than UHC, which will be mandated by the aging baby boomers anyway...we won't be able to afford it any other way. The true socialism just got delivered by the way of unfettered capitalism, courtesy of the current administration. And regarding Palin and socialism...I guess if you put enough lipstick on that pig, you can disguise it. But what else would you call taxing a successful business, and distributing it to the masses who didn't work for it?

Acitizen wrote:
"I suppose the use of words like "-ists" and "-phobe" to intimidate someone into backing away from a position or an action should be the first universal indicator that the speaker is an intellectual lightweight."

No, but in the words of Reagan: "There you go again." I call it as I see it. You claim that calling Bush "Chimpy" (which I haven't) is equivocal to calling a black man "simian." It isn't, and you know it. That a disingenuous argument, but it isn't your first. Why don't you find the first five black people you know, refer to that person as "simian," and write down the reactions you get? Your phony intellectualism, cloaked in racism, doesn't intimidate me.

"I've seen single mothers and poor parents get more in EIC than payroll taxes"

Anecdotal evidence and unconvincing since you would have to claim direct knowledge of their pay stub. Doubtful.

"I don't see any socialist plan coming from Obama, other than UHC..."

Your blindness, willful or otherwise, doesn't negate reality.

"But what else would you call taxing a successful business, and distributing it to the masses who didn't work for it?"

I call it a deliberate distortion of the truth (aka. a lie) at worst; severe ignorance and gullibility at best.

The land and resources are, and always have been, the property of the Alaskan people. That arrangement predates Palin in ANY public office. The oil companies pay a premium or royalty for the ability to use that land and exploit those resources.

Regardless, Palin didn't institute the system- she renegotiated the terms and reformed the corruption by the other politicians that allowed them to get rich in return for special favors for the oil companies that ultimately reduced the returns due the people of the state per the system that was already in place.

Bellasappa:

Keep telling yourself that. I won't confuse you with the facts.

#113 | Posted by moomanfl at 2008-10-30 04:55 PM

Sorry, MMF, but social PROGRAMS do not equal SOCIALISM. Just because you and your ilk find some kind of vindictive advantage in abusing terms that most Americans are too ignorant to understand doesn't make you right.

There is no Socialism in the USA. American liberals are so far removed from real Socialists that any comaparison done by anyone claiming to actually be informed on the matter is laughable.

And that would be you, MMF.

I'll chime in here.

In the 1950s, the Republicans used "Communism" to scare people away from voting Democrat. As we know now, there were damn few Communists in the US and still are.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the "L-word" was thrown around for the same reason with some success.

Now it appears that "socialist" will get the same treatment.

Never underestimate the Republican party to exploit the fact that half of America's population has an IQ under 100.

"or my rebuttal to the claim that Sarah Palin is socialist.

No, she's not. But the Alaska Permanent Fund is certainly a program for "spreading the wealth". Call it socialism or call it whatever you want, doesn't matter.

Keep telling yourself that, Bellasappa.

While you are at it, why don't you post the standard definition of "Socialism" from a credible online dictionary and explain to the unwashed masses here how those social programs (notice the key discriptive is the same root word) differ from what you think Socialism is.

The resulting mental gymnastics should be about as entertaining as watching the Special Olympics... And for pretty much the same reason.

"But the Alaska Permanent Fund is certainly a program for "spreading the wealth"

That is a rationalization only the truly moronic would listen to.

The source of the wealth in question and the reasons and means by which it is acquired makes all the difference as to the claim of socialism.

IIn the case of Alaska, it is the state charging a fee for using a resource that belongs to the people, and giving the proceeds back to the people.

In Obama's case it is taking monery from those that he feels are "too rich" and giving it to those that didn't earn it and otherwise have no claim on the money.

One is Socialism... The other isn't.

"That is a rationalization only the truly moronic would listen to."

Horseshit. It's spreading the natural wealth of Alaska to every resident any way you cut it. I don't care whether you call it capitalism, socialism, Hinduism, Palinism, whatever, it's indisputable that it is "spreading the wealth."

"hy don't you post the standard definition of "Socialism" "

There is no standard definition of socialism. The term is used in popular usage, and here on Drudge, to describe virtually any government program to European social democracy to Marxian socialism and everything in between.

Teddy Roosevelt began "progressive taxation" in which the rich paid a higher tax rate than the poor and middle class.

Ronald Reagan gave the US (along with a massive deficit due to out of control military spending) the Earned Income Credit.

Both are indisputable wealth redistribution ideas put into practice.

Is McCain gonna call them two "Distributers in Chief"?

Will Palin call them "Socialists"?

Of course not, cos they are both lying sacks of shit pressing buttons in the low info populace that the media has been installing fer the last sixty years.

The only people who are gonna vote fer McLame/Failin are racists and/or idiots and/or cowards who have bought into the GOP fearmongering.

The inclusive, the intelligent and the brave will vote fer Barack Obama.

Be Well.

Watch it, Spud.

Some of these guys' heads are gonna melt with that info.

"I don't care whether you call it capitalism, socialism, Hinduism, Palinism, whatever, it's indisputable that it is "spreading the wealth."

That the term used is the same does not mean the respective subjects of the term are equivalent or equally legitimate practices.

After all, you could spin bank robbery a "working for your money" since pulling off the caper requires a great deal of effort. However, that doesn't mean it is equivalent to getting a legitimate job.

To try and pass it off as such is pure bullshit and an exercise in idiocy.

Likewise, any attempt to paint Obama's plan as equivalent to the Alaska situation because of the use of similar terms is also an idiotic argument.

Yeah, yeah yeah.... Obama wants the poor people that are too lazy to get a job to share the wealth. Obama'08! Robinhood!

"That the term used is the same does not mean the respective subjects of the term are equivalent or equally legitimate practices. "

Nope. It's spreading Alaskan wealth to all its residents.

"When home fuel and gas costs soared last year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

She also suspended the 8-cent tax on gas.

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time."

I'm sure the right-tards would be happy to extend the Alaska Permanent Fund concept to every state in the union. Right? Share the profits from logging with every resident of California. Share the profits from coal mining with every resident of West Virginia, etc.

Spud,

What a self-serving analysis you provide on who will be voting for McCain. Pardon me if I Relegate your obviously biased opinion to the virtual rubbish heap where it belongs without further ado.

and moomanfl, pardon us if we do the same with YOUR self-serving analysis.

"Share the profits from logging with every resident of California. Share the profits from coal mining with every resident of West Virginia, etc"

Wow! You just refuse to be honest don't you?

The oil companies in Alaska still keep the cat majority of their profits contrary to the implication of your argument. The simply pay a relatively small portion of the back to the Alaskan people as royalties for use of their land and resources.

Other states would have a hard time enacting a similar model since it would mean seizing and claiming resources that current law assigns to the companies that own the land being used by them.

In cases where a state can follow a similar model without violating current ownership rights, I would support the move.

Sam,

I realize that this whole discussion is a little over your head, but in future yet to put a little more brain power into future posts. You are embarrassing yourself.

"...but in future yet to put a little more brain power into future posts"

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Anyway...

Calling it a night now. Getting a bad case of BlackBerry thumb from typing. About time to start driving anyway.

Take care everyone.

"Wow! You just refuse to be honest don't you?"

Wow! You refuse to be a hypocritical dumbass don't you? If the Alaska governor was a Democrat you would be shrieking "sociaist!"

hahah Moonman, I've never been angry at inferiors. Try not to project so obviously next time.

We'll know that real Socialism has come to the USA when we see the Proletariat running through the streets with dripping knives. Maybe when all those soon to be ex-GM employees rush the company Headquarters and start throwing the Armani-suited corpses from the upper floors. Until that day, it's just a word that ppl like MMFL and Sarah Barracuda can toss out to their starving, yapping hordes of salivating hounds, ie, the "Republican Base".

It occurs to me, the Republicans really have put the "base" in "base".