Obama accuses Republican rivals of dishonesty

Really! No way!?! the republicans speak to Gawd:)
Obama accuses Republican rivals of dishonesty - Yahoo! News
FLINT, Mich. â?? Barack Obama broadly accused his Republican rivals of dishonesty Monday, citing former lobbyists working for John McCain, Sarah Palin's shifting stance on the "Bridge to Nowhere" and their promise to change Washington.

With national polls finding the Democratic presidential nominee trailing or in a dead heat with McCain, Obama began the campaign's final eight-week push by criticizing McCain's popular running mate as much as the Arizona senator himself.

He said Palin has an interesting biography â?? "MotherGoose, governor, mooselinie shooter. That's cool," he said â?? but the election should be about who can change people's lives for the better. He said that won't come from a Republican ticket that almost always supports the same positions as President Bush even though they say they will bring refo

"I mean, you can't just make stuff up," Obama said of a new McCain ad that says Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

:D:DI would have to say his whole demeanor has changed, he seems really mad or not so happy for some reason.:D
Oh, that's right, it's because he has no platform to run on, or record, or anything. All he can do is keep saying, "It's Bush III" and hope it works.
Well good luck. If I were him I would start trying to get my resume ready, maybe he could find a good "community organizer" position. I heard the south side of Chicago could really use one. There are some people that live their that are really hard up, could use a little help from such a gifted leader such as himself!:D

He hasn't even begun yet!
He still has these great ones too:

1. The republicans are going to steal all the money from Social Security.
2. They are going to let old people die and make it impossible for them to afford their medicine!
3. They will usher in the apocolypse due to global warming!
4. They will conspire to make gas 10.00 per gallon! (Because they are in bed with Big Oil of course!)
5. They will magically overturn Roe vs Wade, and make abortion illegal on the federal level.
6. They will take away all funding from social welfare programs and their will be a homelessness epidemic!
7. They will let babies starve to death!
8. They will cause everyone to loose their jobs!
9. They will start a third World War, just because they like guns and killing!
10. They will kill and eat puppies and kittens just for fun!:D

wait you forgot about

11. Banning Books

Kush what are you talking about...i guess its better then endless wars for the bridge to nowhere with the end of days people...you know like sarah poodle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

He hasn't even begun yet!
He still has these great ones too:

1. The republicans are going to steal all the money from Social Security.
2. They are going to let old people die and make it impossible for them to afford their medicine!
3. They will usher in the apocolypse due to global warming!
4. They will conspire to make gas 10.00 per gallon! (Because they are in bed with Big Oil of course!)
5. They will magically overturn Roe vs Wade, and make abortion illegal on the federal level.
6. They will take away all funding from social welfare programs and their will be a homelessness epidemic!
7. They will let babies starve to death!
8. They will cause everyone to loose their jobs!
9. They will start a third World War, just because they like guns and killing!
10. They will kill and eat puppies and kittens just for fun!:D

---

number 8? They will cause everyone to LOOSE their job....will they have to get vasaline from the Bush Regime for that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Sarah Palin's shifting stance on the "Bridge to Nowhere" and their promise to change Washington.


"I mean, you can't just make stuff up," Obama said of a new McCain ad that says Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

---

I wonder if anyone realizes that Governors cannot request earmark money. I mean is this really the only issue they have on her? Last I checked only Senators can get earmark money; making her support or being against it that much less important. I mean we're arguing about a bridge that only caught any spot light because of the corruption surrounding Ted Stevens. Someone correct me if I'm wrong in regards to that only Senators can request/get earmark money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Someone correct me if I'm wrong in regards to that only Senators can request/get earmark money.

---

Yes... I think you are correct, only Congress can request earmark money. I think the only confusion over this is that she may have employed a full-time lobbyist to request them for Wasilla, or something like that?
- We're having some major weather right now and it's hard enough to get CannCom to load.

so yeah... I'm not touching that one. I haven't had the time to read enough into it. Parties aside... they all throw money around like it's nothing. I don't think it's something I will ever even comprehend. In a lifetime, I probably won't make the amount involved in one single government project.

P.S. I doubt they killed kittens. Cat's are useless... they don't provide milk, wool, or meat :stoned: Haha my cat's fat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

"I mean, you can't just make stuff up," Obama said of a new McCain ad that says Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

---

No they're not stupid....they can tell a yes vote from a no vote. Can't believe that he's even talking about this since he'd rather have the bridge than Katrina aid. Guess it was just rich republicans affected by Katrina.

Have a good one!:s4:

So she cancel the bridge to nowhere but kept the money?;)

McCain, Palin criticize Obama on earmarks
ALASKA TOPS: State leads nation in receiving money on a per-capita basis.

By SARA KUGLER
The Associated Press

Published: September 9th, 2008 12:00 AM
Last Modified: September 9th, 2008 12:24 AM

LEE'S SUMMIT, Mo. -- John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects.

<snip>



Obama hasn't asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

The governor did reject plans to build the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere" after Congress had cut off its financing.



McCain and Palin were presented as a maverick team in a campaign ad released Monday that played up their reputation for taking on entrenched interests. The ad credits Palin with stopping the bridge without mentioning she once appeared to support it.

McCain, Palin criticize Obama on earmarks: Alaska News | adn.com

Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics
Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics - TIME
Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

---

GREAT news source e.g..:rolleyes:

Alaska is the only state that does not collect state sales tax or levy an individual income tax. To finance state operations, Alaska depends primarily on petroleum revenues. Some of its cities and other local jurisdictions, however, do collect sales tax revenue.
Alaska state taxes

If I recall the residence even get a yearly check for oil revenues......poor overtaxed bastards. LMAO!

Have a good one!:s4:

Ya i know its from Time go figure........Didnt mcpoodle say she cut taxes in Alaska ive heard it on one of them media lapdogs show i think it was fox, soo my question is How could she cut taxes in Alaska...

And the point that needs to be driven here is that McPalin & Wife lied to YOU about that Bridge To Nowhere not about building it and such but LIED to you just the other day saying No! to the bridge to nowhere when in fact she was and kept the money for the Road to Nowhere....Soo the question is.. if they LIE to you just days ago about the Bridge to Nowhere what makes them differnt from the Bush Regime which LIES to you on a daily basis.....

Its funny the republicans are running against themselves, stay away from George!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I wonder if anyone realizes that Governors cannot request earmark money. I mean is this really the only issue they have on her? Last I checked only Senators can get earmark money; making her support or being against it that much less important. I mean we're arguing about a bridge that only caught any spot light because of the corruption surrounding Ted Stevens. Someone correct me if I'm wrong in regards to that only Senators can request/get earmark money.

---

Only Senators can insert earmarks into senate bills, but Governors and other state officials can and do make requests of their Senators for specific earmarks to be inserted by their Senators. And Governors can and do hire lobbyists to push for bills that include their state's earmarks. So yes, only Senators actually make the earmarks, but Governors are involved in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

GREAT news source e.g..:rolleyes:

Alaska is the only state that does not collect state sales tax or levy an individual income tax. To finance state operations, Alaska depends primarily on petroleum revenues. Some of its cities and other local jurisdictions, however, do collect sales tax revenue.
Alaska state taxes

If I recall the residence even get a yearly check for oil revenues......poor overtaxed bastards. LMAO!

Have a good one!:s4:

---

When the author is referring to Alaska being the number one in taxes per resident and that the taxes per person are 2-and-1/2 higher than other states, he isn't saying that the PEOPLE of Alaska pay that much. That's the whole point! The rest of us pay for it! Not the Alaskans! YOU pay for it!

Alaska rakes in 2 1/2 times as much revenue per person than the rest of the country because they TAX THE SHIT out of the oil being pumped out of their state. As all fiscal conservatives who criticise the proposed windfall profits tax on oil like to point out, that tax gets passed on to the rest of the consumers who buy oil in the form of higher prices.

So Alaska adds to the cost of oil, takes money out of YOUR pocket at the pump, so that its citizens pay NO income tax, NO sales tax, and GET A CHECK every year for about $2000! YOU pay for that! Hahahahahaha! Sucker! Alaska is ripping you off!

The money is taken from you in the form of higher energy costs and given to the citizens of Alaska as free cash money every year! Suck on that, all you who think Palin is a fiscal conservative! Hahahahahaha!

In addition, Alaska is the biggest recipient of Federal spending per person in the nation. For every $1 Alaska sends the Feds in the form of income tax, they get back $1.75. As if they couldn't pay for this stuff themselves!

They pay no state income tax, no state sales tax, minimal property tax! They get $2000 free cash money a year taken from YOU in the form of oil taxes! And they get back a 75% return on every dollar they send to the Feds in the form of income taxes! That money comes from YOU as well!

The idea that Palin is a fiscal conservative is a total joke! Talk about tax and spend! Talk about a redistribution of wealth!

Here's another article about "fiscal conservative" Sarah Palin and how she is screwing YOU in order to give away free gas to Alaskans:

Palin seeks $1.2 billion to slash energy bills: Alaska News | adn.com

Basically it says Sarah Palin increased taxes on oil production in Alaska so much that there is a massive $5,000,000,000 surplus in Alaska's budget. There is a lot of fighting in the legislature about how to spend it all. Palin has proposed giving away a debit card to all Alaska residents that would allow them to get $100 a month in free gas. That's on top of the $2000 a year free cash they get every year, and on top of the EXTRA $1200 she gave them last year.

So basically she increased taxes on Alaska oil, and that cost gets passed on to YOU in the form of higher gas prices so that she can give away FREE GAS to Alaskans. YOUR $4.00 gas helps buy FREE GAS for Alaskans!

Someone explain to me how that is fiscal conservatism!!!

It's not --- it's a ripoff!!!!!

Sarah Palin ripped you off to give away free gas in Alaska. No wonder she has a high approval rating in her state --- she's giving away your money to her constituents! Not sure how that will help her in the lower 48.

Honest politicians are rarer than Asian KKK members

dragonrider - yikes, I'm glad you got those figures. I knew Alaska was like that, but I didn't realize it was that bad. I wonder what she would do on a national level? Borrow a ton of money and send everyone checks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

When the author is referring to Alaska being the number one in taxes per resident and that the taxes per person are 2-and-1/2 higher than other states, he isn't saying that the PEOPLE of Alaska pay that much. That's the whole point! The rest of us pay for it! Not the Alaskans! YOU pay for it!

Alaska rakes in 2 1/2 times as much revenue per person than the rest of the country because they TAX THE SHIT out of the oil being pumped out of their state. As all fiscal conservatives who criticise the proposed windfall profits tax on oil like to point out, that tax gets passed on to the rest of the consumers who buy oil in the form of higher prices.

So Alaska adds to the cost of oil, takes money out of YOUR pocket at the pump, so that its citizens pay NO income tax, NO sales tax, and GET A CHECK every year for about $2000! YOU pay for that! Hahahahahaha! Sucker! Alaska is ripping you off!

The money is taken from you in the form of higher energy costs and given to the citizens of Alaska as free cash money every year! Suck on that, all you who think Palin is a fiscal conservative! Hahahahahaha!

In addition, Alaska is the biggest recipient of Federal spending per person in the nation. For every $1 Alaska sends the Feds in the form of income tax, they get back $1.75. As if they couldn't pay for this stuff themselves!

They pay no state income tax, no state sales tax, minimal property tax! They get $2000 free cash money a year taken from YOU in the form of oil taxes! And they get back a 75% return on every dollar they send to the Feds in the form of income taxes! That money comes from YOU as well!

The idea that Palin is a fiscal conservative is a total joke! Talk about tax and spend! Talk about a redistribution of wealth!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Here's another article about "fiscal conservative" Sarah Palin and how she is screwing YOU in order to give away free gas to Alaskans:

Palin seeks $1.2 billion to slash energy bills: Alaska News | adn.com

Basically it says Sarah Palin increased taxes on oil production in Alaska so much that there is a massive $5,000,000,000 surplus in Alaska's budget. There is a lot of fighting in the legislature about how to spend it all. Palin has proposed giving away a debit card to all Alaska residents that would allow them to get $100 a month in free gas. That's on top of the $2000 a year free cash they get every year, and on top of the EXTRA $1200 she gave them last year.

So basically she increased taxes on Alaska oil, and that cost gets passed on to YOU in the form of higher gas prices so that she can give away FREE GAS to Alaskans. YOUR $4.00 gas helps buy FREE GAS for Alaskans!

Someone explain to me how that is fiscal conservatism!!!

It's not --- it's a ripoff!!!!!

Sarah Palin ripped you off to give away free gas in Alaska. No wonder she has a high approval rating in her state --- she's giving away your money to her constituents! Not sure how that will help her in the lower 48.

---

ALASKA No State Income Tax
FLORIDA No State Income Tax
NEVADA No State Income Tax
SOUTH DAKOTA No State Income Tax
WASHINGTON No State Income Tax
WYOMING No State Income Tax
Individual Income Tax Rates-2008

What does the average Joe in Florida see from all the tourist revenue?; or the ones in Nevada from the gambling? Or from South Dakota from the oil? Or the others? NOTHING! Props to Alaska for giving back to the people from the riches earned. I personally would question the others myself. The oil there IS part of Alaskas wealth and should be shared by the people of that state. Better than creating a bunch of useless government programs on how to aid the people. That's part of "fiscal conservatism", let the people take care of their own money instead of having Uncle Sam play daddy.

Like another member stated; the more you expect from the government in social programs the more he's going to want to intervien in your daily life. Maybe that's why Alaska is so "liberal" on marijuana laws.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

ALASKA No State Income Tax
FLORIDA No State Income Tax
NEVADA No State Income Tax
SOUTH DAKOTA No State Income Tax
WASHINGTON No State Income Tax
WYOMING No State Income Tax
Individual Income Tax Rates-2008

What does the average Joe in Florida see from all the tourist revenue?; or the ones in Nevada from the gambling? Or from South Dakota from the oil? Or the others? NOTHING! Props to Alaska for giving back to the people from the riches earned. I personally would question the others myself. The oil there IS part of Alaskas wealth and should be shared by the people of that state. Better than creating a bunch of useless government programs on how to aid the people. That's part of "fiscal conservatism", let the people take care of their own money instead of having Uncle Sam play daddy.

Like another member stated; the more you expect from the government in social programs the more he's going to want to intervien in your daily life. Maybe that's why Alaska is so "liberal" on marijuana laws.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Employment, cheap cost of living. Not live off daddy right?

If fiscal conservatism is to cry to get their own social programs like this gas card program through oil revenue, while having the rest of the country pay for their Alaska's services, there's still dependency. Alaska is getting subsidized by other states tax revenue. Alaska is the beneficiary of socialism. Republicans and democrats are no different other than how they want to allocate the funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

What does the average Joe in Florida see from all the tourist revenue?; or the ones in Nevada from the gambling? Or from South Dakota from the oil? Or the others? NOTHING! Props to Alaska for giving back to the people from the riches earned. I personally would question the others myself. The oil there IS part of Alaskas wealth and should be shared by the people of that state. Better than creating a bunch of useless government programs on how to aid the people. That's part of "fiscal conservatism", let the people take care of their own money instead of having Uncle Sam play daddy.

Like another member stated; the more you expect from the government in social programs the more he's going to want to intervien in your daily life. Maybe that's why Alaska is so "liberal" on marijuana laws.

---

You missed the point. Not only does Alaska tax the shit out of the oil companies, but they receive billions of federal aid dollars from Washington. The federal government already is "playing daddy." And Alaska is part of the US, so the oil should benefit the rest of the country too, not just Alaska.

P4B, here's what you had to say about Obama's plan to add a temporary windfall tax on oil profits (something I don't support either):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

To compete with Hillary Clintonâ??s pandering on a gas tax holiday, Barack Obama proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies of his own last month. The Obama plan is not unlike the windfall oil profits tax passed by Hugo Chavez just two weeks earlier.

Obama would slap a 20% tax on the cost of a barrel of oil above $80 for all domestic oil companies. Chavez tax hits only foreign oil companies and charges a 50% rate for the cost of a barrel of oil above $70. The difference between Venezuelaâ??s dictator and Barack Obama is only a slight matter of degree.
The Foundry » Blog Archive » Leftists of the World Unite on Windfall Oil Tax

Amazing....this is the dude that Obama feels he can talk to on day one also. Leftist is a perfect term for the Obama's. :thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Sarah Palin's new tax charges 75% on every dollar over $25. Man she is WAY WORSE than either Chavez or Obama! Hell, if Obama is a leftist, then Palin must be Marx, Mao, and Castro all rolled into one!

Chavez tax hits only foreign oil companies and charges a 50% rate for the cost of a barrel of oil above $70. Palin hits domestic companies for 75% over $25. She's a freaking communist!

And after sucking us dry by taxing the hell out of oil, she still has tha gall to suck at the Federqal teat by collecting 75% more from the Federal government than her state pays in income taxes!

She doesn't USE the money for anything, just gives it away to Alaskans for the mere fact that they live in Alaska!

That is freakin' pinko commie redistribution of wealth!

McCain picked a communist for VP!

That's change alright! Get out your Mao books!



Here's another quote relating to the Obama Windfall tax idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

I like seeing the greedy assholes get heavily taxed but in the real world all it would mean is we would be paying more for our gas. They just pass the added costs on to the consumer like every business does.

---

That is exactly right. The oil companies pass tha tax on to YOU, and Palin uses it to give her state citizens $2000 cash every year, a special bonus check of $1200 this year, and $100 FREE GAS EVERY MONTH!!!!!

Bend over lower 48! Palin's gonna give it to ya Moose Style!



Here is another one about the Obama windfall tax idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THClord

Obama is so dumb...

The tax won't do anything, but carry on to the customers, thus making things worse.

---

Seems like people understand very well how this works. The oil comapny passes it on to you, and Palin gives it away as cash bonuses to her constituency.



I'd love to see a real fiscal conservative back me up on this.

I am a fiscal conservative myself but I vote Democratic mostly because of my environmental beliefs. People always want to label me as a "liberal" but I give conservatives respect for the areas where I agree with them. And I also say when I disagree with my party on certain things too. I have not supported Obama's call for a windfall profits tax, and I did not support the bipartisan "stimulus" fiasco in which we borrowed money to give away to people.

Are there any real fiscal conservative who agree that it is wrong to have a tax that is passed on to everyone in order to give away free cash and free gas to citizens of a single state for no better reason than that they live there?

That is PURE redistribution of wealth without even trying to hide behind the idea that the money is for something or serves a social purpose.

I guess I am confused dragon. I want to hear you out though. This is what I don't understand.
From the article you posted above, it says that Alaska's tax revenue has gone up tremendously due to the inflated cost of oil. It didn't say that she increased the taxes did it?
This is also in the context of, Alaska is producing this resource right? They are then selling it right? The tax is on the sale right? So if the cost of oil skyrockets, then the revenues from taxes on it also go up right? So what am I missing? I didn't see where she raised the taxes on energy production in Alaska, just that the revenues went up. I know that I must be completely missing something here. Throw me a polar bear bone here1:D

I think what I am confused on is the tax on sales, as opposed to the tax on profits?

More wisdom about taxing oil profits:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

More taxation of the oil companies will just further burden the consumer as these costs will just be rolled down onto them; making our efforts to move away from oil that much harder!!

---

Damn straight, Daihashi! And if the only reason for taxing that oil and raising the prices on EVERYONE is so that you can give away FREE CASH and FREE GAS to a SELECT FEW who live in one state, then that is socailist redistribution of wealth!

Keep this communist from being one heartbeat away from the presidency! It's a plot!


There are so many posts about this topic!:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

With Democrats controlling Congress in 1980, Jimmy Carter got the windfall profits tax passed and as if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose.

---

Just like Carter! Palin is keeping production LOW, so prices stay HIGH! Which just means that much more profit for her to tax! Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' money!

To bad none of us will see any of that, she's just going to give it away to Alaskans! And ask for more cash from the Feds!



Bong30 has an interesting take on taxing oil company profits:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

This is great


Nobama wants a WINDFALL profit tax on big oil

give you a 1000 bucks...... I could use it Ill tell ya, BUT



Ask your MOM and DAD, look at you prospectus, statement, whatever......

If you have a 401k



YOU ARE BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



so Nobama wants to take money from you,to give to you.....


He is so stupid



discuss you are big oil, and if you were smart you would have bought oil low and sold it high.....ahhh the American Dream:thumbsup:

---

Hey, Bong30! Look out! Palin is raping your 401k too! Palin is driving down the value of YOUR RETIREMENT fund, so she can give free gas to Alaskans! You better plan on retiring to Alaska! Of course, by that time this socialist scheme will probably be exposed and the jig will be up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

I guess I am confused dragon. I want to hear you out though. This is what I don't understand.
From the article you posted above, it says that Alaska's tax revenue has gone up tremendously due to the inflated cost of oil. It didn't say that she increased the taxes did it?
This is also in the context of, Alaska is producing this resource right? They are then selling it right? The tax is on the sale right? So if the cost of oil skyrockets, then the revenues from taxes on it also go up right? So what am I missing? I didn't see where she raised the taxes on energy production in Alaska, just that the revenues went up. I know that I must be completely missing something here. Throw me a polar bear bone here1:D

I think what I am confused on is the tax on sales, as opposed to the tax on profits?

---

It is a combination of an increase in the tax rate that Palin approved, and the increase in profit. It's actually a progressive tax, so that the higher the profit margin, the higher the rate is in terms of percentage. With the increase in prices that we all pay, it has made for astronomical revenues for Alaska, which Palin is now proposing to give away to Alaskans.

Here is a good article:

Local News | Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil | Seattle Times Newspaper

Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil

While Congress and the presidential candidates debate the wisdom of a windfall tax on oil companies, Alaska has already imposed one, hauling in billions of dollars in new revenue for the state treasury.

By �ngel González and Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporters

Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.

Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry â?? a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch at the gasoline pump and oil companies are racking up record profits, Alaska's choice foreshadows one of the sharpest debates in the upcoming presidential election.

Democrat Barack Obama supports a national windfall-profits tax, while Republican John McCain opposes it.

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue â?? from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties â?? to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.

While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.

Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.

Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.

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."

The industry, however, warns new taxes are already discouraging future exploration and development in newer, more expensive projects needed to boost waning production in Alaska's oil patches.

"Clearly, from the investor standpoint, Alaska has become a less attractive place to invest exploration and production dollars," said Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

Tax imposed by Carter

The oil industry has long fought windfall-profits taxes. Officials cite a congressional study that indicated a windfall-profits tax imposed by President Carter â?? and later repealed in the 1980s â?? appeared to discourage U.S. oil-field development.

"It was a bad idea in the 1980s, and it is an even worse idea today," says an American Petroleum Institute statement on windfall taxes.

The industry's arguments held sway in the U.S. Senate in June, where Republicans defeated a Democratic proposal for a windfall-profits tax that would have raised an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion.

The debate has spilled into the presidential campaign.

Obama supports a federal windfall-profits tax, with the proceeds used to provide rebates of $500 or $1,000 to taxpayers. "Increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place," Obama said last Monday in Michigan. "But it's not the solution" to America's energy problems, he added.

McCain has blasted the idea, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."

In Alaska, the willingness of Republicans to tax the oil industry reflects unusual political developments.

Last year, as part of a major federal corruption investigation, an oil-services executive â?? former VECO Chairman Bill Allen â?? pleaded guilty to bribing some state legislators as he sought to limit the size of an oil-tax increase approved in 2006.

In the fall primary of 2006, Palin upset Republican incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski, whom she criticized for giving too much of a break to the oil industry.

Then last year, Palin introduced a graduated tax pegged to increased oil prices. The state Legislature modified her proposal to increase the state's take even further.

Production falling

The bill's proponents â?? a coalition of Democrats and maverick Republicans â?? argued that oil production was declining in Alaska, and that the lower tax rate under previous governors had done little to spur additional investment in the state's oil industry.

Critics say the companies, who have lobbied to open the federal Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration, have lagged badly in developing already available fields on state lands. Some estimates indicate those fields may contain billions of barrels of oil, mostly heavy crude that's difficult to extract.

They argue that the state â?? which owns most of the land around Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field â?? needs to grab its fair share of proceeds from the declining output there.

"You don't get to grow another oil barrel," said French, the Anchorage lawmaker. "You sell that barrel once, and it's gone forever."

The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.

The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52.

The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees.

ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.

An accounting benefit eases the sting for oil companies. They get a huge deduction on their state taxes when calculating their federal taxes.

Companies pull back

Still, oil-industry officials contend the tax already has affected investment decisions.

BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.

"What the tax has done is take away all the upside," said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter â?? far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.

Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.

In July, BP announced it would begin developing the Liberty oil field, a $1.5 billion project expected to yield 100 million barrels of oil, located on federal lands in Alaska. If the project had been located in state lands on the North Slope, "I don't think we'd have been able to make that investment," Suttles said.

Alaska state officials say they still do plenty to court the oil industry, such as giving small, independent producers breaks on royalty payments. And the state tax bill includes a generous provision for deducting investments in new fields or other capital costs.

"We think that, hopefully, [the new tax system] will encourage firms to get on the Slope and produce more oil and gas," said state petroleum economist Cherie Nienhuis.

Prices spur global trend

Alaska's decision to raise taxes is part of a global trend. Emboldened by high energy prices and the industry's difficulty in finding giant new oil fields, oil-rich nations from Venezuela to Russia have been raising taxes and royalty payments in recent years.

Even the market-friendly United Kingdom, home to oil giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell, recently has sought to capture a bigger share of revenue from companies operating in the North Sea.

Despite the oil companies' complaints, many say that as they vie for access to new oil and gas deposits, they have little choice but to accept deals they once might have spurned.

Many Alaskans are happy to have newfound leverage over oil companies in what they see as the state's last big boom. But others see it as a tricky issue for the state.

Although Alaska's huge resources and relative political stability make it affordable for oil firms to pay huge taxes there, "you don't want take so much that you discourage activity," said Kenneth Medlock, a petroleum economist at Rice University in Houston. "You want to strike that fine balance."

Wow, that sucks.
Doesn't seem like a good idea, unless you live in Alaska. Which she was the govenor of, and the oil was taken out of state owned land. Still the same, doesn't seem like a great idea, if what the article says is true. You can't really lay the blame solely on her however, there was the state legislature that obviously was apart of this. In the short term I can see how someone could make an argument for doing just this, if you are serving the people of Alaska, however, doesn't seem to be a super duper great idea at all.:wtf:
That being said, it should be a plus for all the whiney liberal wackos that believe it IS a good idea!
And oh yeah, she is still fucking hot, I would still do her until I broke it off, and I will still vote for McCain. Just chalk that up to yet another point that I don't agree with within my party. The list grows, but it's no where near the length of the list for the democrats. I can at least find issues that I do actually agree with the GOP on. Haven't found that yet on the other side, don't really expect to.
Did I mention she is facking hauwwt!:D
Good point though, so she is in agreement with the left on this issue, doesn't make me happy, but isn't exactly something that I see swaying any conservatives away either. Because the alternative is far worse on a broader range of issues, at least for me.
Thanks for fucking up my night, DICK!:S4: (I say that jokingly of course....(muttering under my breath, Dragon is a DICKFARM grumble grumble scowl, sneer!);)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Wow, that sucks.
Doesn't seem like a good idea, unless you live in Alaska. Which she was the govenor of, and the oil was taken out of state owned land. Still the same, doesn't seem like a great idea, if what the article says is true.

---

I'm glad you can see past pure partisanship (and pure hotness) and recognize a bad idea when you see one. She may be hot, but she is no fiscal conservative!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Thanks for fucking up my night, DICK!:S4: (I say that jokingly of course....(muttering under my breath, Dragon is a DICKFARM grumble grumble scowl, sneer!);)

---

Did you just call me a dickfarm? You're lucky I don't take these kinds of things personally! For that I will leave you with this final image: There you are banging away at the lovely Sarah Palin. Your dream has finally come true! It's better than you ever could have imagined! But just as you explode in ecstacy, she suddenly she morphs into Hugo Chavez! Hugo is pregnant with your misbegotten love child! And he is keeping the baby! You must raise your child with the ugliest man on the whole planet, and the only one more commie than Palin!

Have a great night, Kush!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I'm glad you can see past pure partisanship (and pure hotness) and recognize a bad idea when you see one. She may be hot, but she is no fiscal conservative!



Did you just call me a dickfarm? You're lucky I don't take these kinds of things personally! For that I will leave you with this final image: There you are banging away at the lovely Sarah Palin. Your dream has finally come true! It's better than you ever could have imagined! But just as you explode in ecstacy, she suddenly she morphs into Hugo Chavez! Hugo is pregnant with your misbegotten love child! And he is keeping the baby! You must raise your child with the ugliest man on the whole planet, and the only one more commie than Palin!

Have a great night, Kush!

---

Perfect! Feel free to go ahead and start buying me some viagra now!:mad::D;)

lol, lovely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronik

lol, lovely.

---

note to self unplug my webcam!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronik

lol, lovely.

---

Thanks alot, man...I just tore my own eyes out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Wow, that sucks.
Doesn't seem like a good idea, unless you live in Alaska. Which she was the govenor of, and the oil was taken out of state owned land.

---

It's not actually state-owned land.

The Federal governemnt owns about 60% of Alaskan land. The State of Alaska owns about 30%. Corporations repreesnting native peoples own almost all the rest. Private landowners own a fractional percentage.

When Alaska became the 49th state in 1959, it and the federal government agreed to a statehood compact that requires that 90 percent of all revenue from oil, mineral and gas leasing on Alaska's Federal land be given to the state.

I'm not sure I understand this completely, but I think that means that Alaska gets 90% of the revenue from the leases paid to the Federal government. And I think that is on TOP of the additional profit taxes were were talking about before!

Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' money!

90% of the lease revenue on Federal lands!
Plus a profit tax on oil companies passed on to all of us consumers as more expensive fuel costs!
Plus a beggars cup held out to the Feds for $1.75 return on every $1 they send to the Feds!

And they just redistribute that wealth to the citizens of Alaska in the form of annual checks of $2000 a person, bonus checks of $1200 per person, and gas cards for $100 free gas per month!

Try to put some lipstick on THAT pig!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Wow, that sucks.
Doesn't seem like a good idea, unless you live in Alaska. Which she was the govenor of, and the oil was taken out of state owned land. Still the same, doesn't seem like a great idea, if what the article says is true. You can't really lay the blame solely on her however, there was the state legislature that obviously was apart of this. In the short term I can see how someone could make an argument for doing just this, if you are serving the people of Alaska, however, doesn't seem to be a super duper great idea at all.:wtf:
That being said, it should be a plus for all the whiney liberal wackos that believe it IS a good idea!
And oh yeah, she is still fucking hot, I would still do her until I broke it off, and I will still vote for McCain. Just chalk that up to yet another point that I don't agree with within my party. The list grows, but it's no where near the length of the list for the democrats. I can at least find issues that I do actually agree with the GOP on. Haven't found that yet on the other side, don't really expect to.
Did I mention she is facking hauwwt!:D
Good point though, so she is in agreement with the left on this issue, doesn't make me happy, but isn't exactly something that I see swaying any conservatives away either. Because the alternative is far worse on a broader range of issues, at least for me.
Thanks for fucking up my night, DICK!:S4: (I say that jokingly of course....(muttering under my breath, Dragon is a DICKFARM grumble grumble scowl, sneer!);)

---

So far, Kush, you are the only conservative to reposnd honestly to this idea that Palin has not necessarily acted as a true "fiscal conservative." Thanks for that! (Even if you did call me a dickfarm, whatever the hell that is.)

WoW check this cartoon out...........
Ann Telnaes Cartoons - washingtonpost.com

Hell, they're politicans. You can expect more truth from a used car salesman.