Another Disgusting Oil Spill!!

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268603
So why am I getting worked for pointing out that Alaska has a good deal going and gets a lot of federal money. I wonder how Alaska would be doing if the government deeded all that land back to them and they where forced to get by on what my state gets? I'm just pointing out that Alaska is not doing anything special, except collecting a lot of rent and being lucky enough to have oil. They are redistributing others tax dollar in the finest socialist tradition up there.
Of course the true believers will tell you it was all Palin's good work. LOL
I guess every lease payment made by an oil company is redistribution too. Only a liberal would argue participating in the free market, would be a socialist plan.
It is really simple Alaska owns what the oil companies want, so Alaska sells them the minieral rights to go get it. And the oil companies pay for it. Then the government, turn around and distributes those payments to the people, because the people own the land.
Explain to me how that is socialist?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268570
Let's put all the illegals on cleaning up the oil spill. When they are done, we can ship them back. Or at least throw them back over the fence.

Fema: Find Every Mexican Available -George Lopez

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268603
So why am I getting worked for pointing out that Alaska has a good deal going and gets a lot of federal money. I wonder how Alaska would be doing if the government deeded all that land back to them and they where forced to get by on what my state gets? I'm just pointing out that Alaska is not doing anything special, except collecting a lot of rent and being lucky enough to have oil. They are redistributing others tax dollar in the finest socialist tradition up there.
Of course the true believers will tell you it was all Palin's good work. LOL
You mean the federal government follow the constitution and give the land back?(See equal footing clause) I bet Alaska would love it. Mention BLM lands to people west of Kansas and you usually get a negative response. East of Kansas they'll scratch their heads and say what? The western states got hosed over. Nevada has a stupid amount of federal lands too.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268608
You mean the federal government follow the constitution and give the land back?(See equal footing clause) I bet Alaska would love it. Mention BLM lands to people west of Kansas and you usually get a negative response. East of Kansas they'll scratch their heads and say what? The western states got hosed over. Nevada has a stupid amount of federal lands too.
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...nds-in-the-us/

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268605
I guess every lease payment made by an oil company is redistribution too. Only a liberal would argue participating in the free market, would be a socialist plan.
It is really simple Alaska owns what the oil companies want, so Alaska sells them the minieral rights to go get it. And the oil companies pay for it. Then the government, turn around and distributes those payments to the people, because the people own the land.
Explain to me how that is socialist?
Well actually it is socialist to a point. Government holds a means of production and distributes it evenly among the citizens, rich or poor. Difference being under a truely socialist system government would control ALL means of productions and distribute the profit to individuals based on their needs.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268611
Well actually it is socialist to a point. Government holds a means of production and distributes it evenly among the citizens, rich or poor. Difference being under a truely socialist system government would control ALL means of productions and distribute the profit to individuals based on their needs.
Means of production would be the government owning the oil company... Not owning mineral rights. You could make some long shot out in right field argument that government owning land is socialist... But that would be out there...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268610
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...nds-in-the-us/
Here's the BLM map
http://www.blm.gov/nstc/jurisdictions/
These aren't parks or forests, just federally held lands.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268612
Means of production would be the government owning the oil company... Not owning mineral rights. You could make some long shot out in right field argument that government owning land is socialist... But that would be out there...
That's why I said "to a point". Alaska is an example of how government SHOULD work. Instead of looking at revenues as a cash cow and trying to decide how politicians can best spend it the government should treat is as the people's money and decide how to best use it to serve the people. In Alaska they are fortunate enough to have good people in state office like Sarah Palin who think that way, thus you get a check every year instead of a new bureaucracy your taxes will eventually be raised to support once the department or program expands beyond it's original intent and capabilities.

 

[fishtaco]

LOL, okay comrades, I must go out and work now since Alaska, nor anybody else is going to send me a check for doing nothing. Like I said, let Alaska get on par with other states for federal dollars received and see how fast those checks go away. If there not using that federal money for anything but to turn a profit, then they are doing nothing but suckling the teat.
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268621
LOL, okay comrades, I must go out and work now since Alaska, nor anybody else is going to send me a check for doing nothing. Like I said, let Alaska get on par with other states for federal dollars received and see how fast those checks go away. If there not using that federal money for anything but to turn a profit, then they are doing nothing but suckling the teat.
Fishtaco
Work hard, I am hoping for a increase in my disability check next year

I know a few different people from Alaska and the bad roads thing isn't a legitimate argument. I lived in Montana which doesn't have as extreme weather as Alaska and they suffer the same issues with rural roads but those in town are taken care of pretty well. It's the rural roads which are harder and more expensive to maintain that aren't in great shape, it's not an efficient outlay of resources to repave them every spring.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268621
LOL, okay comrades, I must go out and work now since Alaska, nor anybody else is going to send me a check for doing nothing. Like I said, let Alaska get on par with other states for federal dollars received and see how fast those checks go away. If there not using that federal money for anything but to turn a profit, then they are doing nothing but suckling the teat.
Fishtaco
But they did do something, they own some very valuable mineral rights....

 

[mrdc]

I read this morning that Obama is considering adding a 1% tax per barrel on the oil companies to pay for the oil spill. Wouldn't the oil companies pass that tax on to us or am I missing something?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268634
I read this morning that Obama is considering adding a 1% tax per barrel on the oil companies to pay for the oil spill. Wouldn't the oil companies pass that tax on to us or am I missing something?
Well, imo, you're not missing something...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268634
I read this morning that Obama is considering adding a 1% tax per barrel on the oil companies to pay for the oil spill. Wouldn't the oil companies pass that tax on to us or am I missing something?
If they were to just tax one entity (the one involved) for the clean up then I would say probably not as their higher price would not compare to the prices from other companies. But since he wants to tax ALL the oil companies for ONE oil company's mistake, yes we will feel that increase.

 

[mrdc]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268659
If they were to just tax one entity (the one involved) for the clean up then I would say probably not as their higher price would not compare to the prices from other companies. But since he wants to tax ALL the oil companies for ONE oil company's mistake, yes we will feel that increase.
I need to go back to read the article again. I did notice that he mentioned ALL companies and I was wondering why ALL. Can you just not single out one company for tax purposes but instead have to tax the entire sector? Not sure about the rules on that one.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268662
I need to go back to read the article again. I did notice that he mentioned ALL companies and I was wondering why ALL. Can you just not single out one company for tax purposes but instead have to tax the entire sector? Not sure about the rules on that one.
Yeah, they have to tax the entire sector. It is a law preventing the government from taxing specific companies out of business....and is a good law in my opinion, other wise candidates would be able to influence what companies are allowed to remain in business more than they can now.
so yes, it has to be ALL.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268662
I need to go back to read the article again. I did notice that he mentioned ALL companies and I was wondering why ALL. Can you just not single out one company for tax purposes but instead have to tax the entire sector? Not sure about the rules on that one.
If you make the one single company bear the costs you punish them for their transgressions and resolve the cost issues without harming the public, a single company can't drive market prive. If you make all the companies bear the costs you will have another reoccurring income stream to fund a whole new set of social engineering schemes and the mind numb public wont mind because it the evil Big Oil paying for it.

 

[mrdc]

It made since as I was typing why he can't just tax BP. It's like in insurance where we can't just raise the premium on one person because he is getting sick more than others. I guess instead of a tax, he should fine BP in some way to pay for the cost. But knowing Obama, he sees this tax as a way to bring in more money for his programs and is just using the oil spill as a cover.

 

[stdreb27]

I guess I don't understand... BP is already legally on a hook, what is the government trying to recoup costs for. Today BP just gave 100 million to the feds...

 

[reefraff]

BP is on the hook for 100% of the damages and clean up. It's the economic claims that have the cap but that doesn't hold up if they were found to be negligent.