Palin leaves door open for possible Senate run

[wez]

You have seen it at least twice now. You still do not comprehend it. What makes a scoiety rich and what creates a middle class is free market economies . When you subsidize sloth and failure you simply perpetuate poverty, and poverty's friends crime and drug abuse. not allieve it. When government redistributes wealth society is poorer for it.

"Wealth" is not an infinite sustainable resource nor are the resources that create it and there has never in the history of the world been a free market economy.


I think we see where greed got us.. Hows your 401k/IRA looking? You appreciate the false statments, inflated profits, hidden debt, dishonesty and lies of the fine upstanding free market capitalists in the name of greed?

A real free market has crucial requirments.. honesty, fairness and total transparancy are non negotiable.. In a real free market, a bum on the street must have exactly the same rights and power as a "federal reserve".. You can keep the dream alive, I'm ditching it for reality.. Call it whatever ya want.. The worlds basically operated under the same bullsh t for centuries whether it's greedy capitalists masquarading under socialism, ie Russia/China, or greedy socialists masquarading under capitalism ie us.. Come from the same cesspool where greed, power and control are the objective. Call it whatever ya want.. words don't fool me..


At the basis of a true free market ideology.. Paris Hilton and little orphan Annie must start out exactly the same... Can't have that without true socialism where everyone ends the same .. It's a dilemma.


You telling me the Rockafellers and Kennedy's and every other multigenerational "success" has done so through the wonders of hard work and free markets? Little John John pull himself up by the bootstraps to afford the plane he crashed and the home on St. Martha's Vinyard he was flying to?

Time to face reality.. Perhaps a 100% inheritence tax is in order for a real "free market".. as well as laws forbidding the transer of wealth in any way, shape or form to other individuals.. Greed grows like bacteria.. And like I said, not an infinite supply to go around.. Money is an illusion.. How much is the last glass of fresh water on Earth worth?

 

[snafu]

Also did you notice Milton talking about China and Russia? He didn't say Conico and BP. He was talking countries.

 

[hugo]

No I understand totally. We could not create wealth without free market. yes.
But you just double talked this in to oblivion. How can we do this , especially with an non reusable resource without government intervention? Without out guidelines? Without equability?

Can I go into your backyard, find oil, push you out of the way and create wealth for myself?

The oil companies already pay lease fees to drill. The windfall profits tax is an additional expense. It is not the oil companies that are being greedy but the federal government that prevebts Alaska from receiving significant.revenue on leases.

Of course the primary problem remains the income redistribution which Palin engaged in. It is the same ideology as Barack's income tax cuts that includes individuals that pay no taxes. I am looking for a Barry Goldwater among the Republicans, not a GW in a dress.

 

[snafu]

The oil companies already pay lease fees to drill. The windfall profits tax is an additional expense. It is not the oil companies that are being greedy but the federal government that prevents Alaska from receiving significant.revenue on leases.

Of course the primary problem remains the income redistribution which Palin engaged in. It is the same ideology as Barack's income tax cuts that includes individuals that pay no taxes. I am looking for a Barry Goldwater among the Republicans, not a GW in a dress.

No it's not. I pay taxes and although those that do not and benefited by this gas relief plan was for Alaskans. We are the richest State in the union and the gas belongs to not only me, the tax payer but every Alaskan. Yet we pay the highest gas prices in the nation. She gave back to the people that needed to heat their homes this winter the revenue that yes we leased out. What's wrong with that? That is nothing like taking my tax dollar and handing it to someone who doesn't work and giving them an extra welfare check. Also you have to realize the oil industry has changed the way of life for many people who have no income. they survived by subsidizing. But then again you have government telling them how much they can hunt and limiting this. You make them poor and up root their total life style. How do you subsidizes this? Do you let them freeze and starve to death?


On that note we don't pay state taxes. That was revenue recived by the oil industry was handed back to the people.

 

[wez]

And another thing, who's got the right to grant the right to an oil company to have exclusive rights to drill oil? Who's got the right to grant the right to buy and sell a piece of land? Who has the right to grant ownership over land and resources? Where does that right to grant rights derive from? Threat of force? Big bad governments who expect a piece of the pie? All there is in the world are individual human beings, who for the most part, want and need the same things. Organized governments, corperations and religions are not living, breathing entities.. I can 100% guarantee you there is always individual human beings hiding behind the curtain pulling the or else levers.

Whatevahhhhhh..

 

[snafu]

And another thing, who's got the right to grant the right to an oil company to have exclusive rights to drill oil? Who's got the right to grant the right to buy and sell a piece of land? Who has the right to grant ownership over land and resources? Where does that right to grant rights derive from? Threat of force? Big bad governments who expect a piece of the pie? All there is in the world are individual human beings, who for the most part, want and need the same things. Organized governments, corperations and religions are not living, breathing entities.. I can 100% guarantee you there is always individual human beings hiding behind the curtain pulling the or else levers.

Whatevahhhhhh..

They do wez. The Native coporations made the deals and they are subsudized pretty well. They have free medical care (one of the finest hospitals in the state) and they invested there moneys to be pretty profitable. Most Alaskan Natives recive a check from the Native Regional Corp. But they rual villages still live in poverty.

 

[wez]

They do wez. The Native coporations made the deals and they are subsudized pretty well. They have free medical care (one of the finest hospitals in the state) and they invested there moneys to be pretty profitable. Most Alaskan Natives recive a check from the Native Regional Corp. But they rual villages still live in poverty.

And who granted "they" the right to make the deal in the first place? Where did their ownership of the resources derive from?

And I'm not just talking Alaska.. Talking planet Earth.

 

[wez]

Here's some more food for thought whilst I study broken bones..



Is it just a strange coincidence that practically every national politician is wealthy beyond anyones standards, and the ones who aren't is only because they haven't been there long enough? That fathers and sons named Bush are "leaders of the free world" in a span of less than 10 years?


Never knew public service was so lucritive.. Discuss amongst yourselves, I'm feeling veclempt...

 

[hugo]

But then again you have government telling them how much they can hunt and limiting this. You make them poor and up root their total life style. How do you subsidizes this? Do you let them freeze and starve to death?

Lenin would be proud of Palin. I don't think 1200 bucks will last long if you choose to remain unemployed since your subsistence hunting gig went away thanks to big government. It is amazing how government creates problems and the answer people come up with to the problems is more government.

 

[hugo]

"

At the basis of a true free market ideology.. Paris Hilton and little orphan Annie must start out exactly the same... Can't have that without true socialism where everyone ends the same .. It's a dilemma.

False, a free market does not mean everyone is born with equal assets. You will always have your rich and your poor, your ugly and your beautiful, your geniuses and your morons. No one ever suggests good looking people should take an ugly pill, or geniuses should take a stupid pill to negate an advantage they were born with. Yet people think inheritors of wealth should be taxed to make things fair. I'll let Paris keep her money, Just give me Brad Pitt's looks. He has had them long enough to make his fortune.

Life ain't fair, government makes it less fair--Hugo

 

[ImWithStupid]

I agree that any sort of taking from someone to give to another is redistribution of wealth. A form of socialism. The taking of profits from the oil companies to give to the citizens of Alaska is a socialistic practice.

Just because Alaskan's are paying more for gas than many others doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of conspiracy to jack up prices. It costs more for transportation and most every other form of logistics in Alaska.

I also understand that under Alaska law and the Constitution of the State of Alaska that the natural resources belong to the citizens of Alaska and the profits should be shared.

With that said, I have no problem with individual states deciding to adopt some socialistic principals.

I do however have a problem with the Federal government doing so. It isn't right for states like Texas, Alaska, or even here in Nebraska, who work within their budgets, and don't overspend as a local government be made to give money to states like Ohio, or Delaware who through large tax laws have driven corportations to move to states with less stringant tax laws, because people who have no vested interest, and can outvote those who do, like what happens in Congress decide they should.

Social programs should be left to the states.

We need to move back to what the Constitution allows, as far as the Federal government goes.

 

[snafu]

Just because Alaskans are paying more for gas than many others doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of conspiracy to jack up prices. It costs more for transportation and most every other form of logistics in Alaska.

.

Thats the thing though. It's not pipelined anywhere. It's not shipped or barged anywhere.
It's pumped and refined right here in Alaska. The logistics of bringing it to rural areas don't even come close to these other means of supplying it. Louisiana has no problem supplying their oil cheaper.

The people in the lower 48 get Alaskan gas cheaper than Alaskans do.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Thats the thing though. It's not pipelined anywhere. It's not shipped or barged anywhere.
It's pumped and refined right here in Alaska. The logistics of bringing it to rural areas don't even come close to these other means of supplying it. Louisiana has no problem supplying their oil cheaper.

The people in the lower 48 get Alaskan gas cheaper than Alaskans do.

But they have to pay more for the supplies shipped there, pay more for the employees to come there and so on and so forth. Just becasue it's done there doesn't mean the overhead is lower.

 

[snafu]

But they have to pay more for the supplies shipped there, pay more for the employees to come there and so on and so forth. Just because it's done there doesn't mean the overhead is lower.

Yes they do as apposed to me buying it in Anchorage but even in Anchorage we pay some of the highest prices and there is no excuse. The gas companies do not pay the same 37% tax they do in Louisiana and so they still charge us more. They are gouging Alaskans. Both parties up here see this and are going to put a stop to it.

 

[hugo]

Yes they do as apposed to me buying it in Anchorage but even in Anchorage we pay some of the highest prices and there is no excuse. The gas companies do not pay the same 37% tax they do in Louisiana and so they still charge us more. They are gouging Alaskans. Both parties up here see this and are going to put a stop to it.

I need to check this some more but I believe in Louisiana the states get 37.5% of the federal lease revenues.. There is not an additional tax.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service’s March 19 auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico totaled $3.67 billion, shattering 1983’s record $3.4 billion and October 2007’s $2.9 billion — then the second largest. For the first time ever, a portion of the federal lease sale in the eastern region and revenues generated from drilling will be returned to Louisiana and other producing states.

The MMS’ Gulf of Mexico Region collected 1,057 bids from 78 companies on 615 tracts offered in Central Lease Sale 206, which is off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and accounted for the bulk of the lease sale. Another 58 bids were received from five companies on 36 tracts an area about 125 miles from the Florida Panhandle. Known as Eastern Lease Sale 224 and totaling $64 million, this marks the first time bids have been taken in the eastern Gulf region.

In 2006, Congress opened up 8.3 million acres of additional territory in that region, an area estimated to have the capacity for producing 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — enough to heat 6 million homes for 15 years.

Most notable about Eastern Sale 224, however, is its impact on the state coffers in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, which will receive 37.5 percent of the revenues generated from all newly leased acreage in the eastern region. The history-making revenue sharing provision was mandated by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, giving the states royalties from production in federal waters off their coastlines. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu co-authored the legislation, earmarking the estimated $13 billion in revenues over the next three decades for coastal restoration and hurricane recovery.

“Today the federal government finally begins fulfilling a promise President Truman offered Louisiana almost 60 years ago,” Landrieu says. “Since I came to the Senate in 1997, it has been my No. 1 priority to get Louisiana its fair share of offshore oil and gas revenues and to apply it to shoring up our natural hurricane protection.”

Two years ago Landrieu built a bipartisan coalition with the Republican chairman on the Energy and Natural Resources committee, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, passing the Domenici-Landrieu Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act into law. It provides Louisiana and the three other Gulf Coast states with the same share of revenues Truman offered six decades ago, an offer Louisiana rejected — holding out for 100 percent of the revenues.

“Today in the Superdome [where the lease sale was held], the first proceeds of more than half a century of effort came to fruition,” Landrieu says. “Over time, this law means billions for Louisiana — every penny of which will be directed to coastal restoration and hurricane protection, which the law directs and our state constitution now confirms. Today we closed Truman’s chapter of our history and opened a new one — one in which Louisiana has its own long sought-after source of independent revenue to secure our future.”

The four Gulf producing states will see immediate benefits from leases awarded in Sale 224, sharing both in the bonus bids and rents and any royalties collected down the road. Revenue generated from Sale 224 collected by MMS in fiscal year 2008 will be disbursed to the eligible states beginning in fiscal year 2009. Louisiana’s share from just the March 19 lease sale will total about $9 million this year alone, according to Landrieu.

“The ripple effect of today’s lease sale will be felt throughout the Gulf Coast,” says Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association President Chris John. “The economic benefits are deep, and everyone in Louisiana will feel them, from service companies to caterers to the ‘mom and pop’ small businesses.”

 

[snafu]

I need to check this some more but I believe in Louisiana the states get 37.5% of the federal lease revenues.. There is not an additional tax.

Yes and I'm saying Alaska was left out of this federal leased revenues.

Palin gave back money's from oil companies that were in our state lease agreement. Again we don't pay State taxes. But I do pay federal taxes.

 

[hugo]

Yes and I'm saying Alaska was left out of this federal leased revenues.

Sounds like Palin and Alaska's senators need to get on the ball and negotiate with the feds. Not place another tax on oil.

Palin backed Alaskan windfall-profits taxposted at 8:50 am on August 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly John McCain and nearly every economist agrees that a windfall-profits tax on the oil industry would drive away investment, increase prices to consumers, and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil. If anyone wants to see that in microcosm, they only need look at Alaska. With the backing of Governor Sarah Palin, the state managed to drive away investment in development by hiking taxes on oil companies drilling on state lands:
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 — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared. …
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 — 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 fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.
However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.
If this plan gets pushed across the country in an Obama administration, then we can expect similar disincentives to curtail domestic production all across the nation. Oil companies will explore other parts of the world, but American oil companies will not have the access they enjoy here. Our own companies will be weakened in international competition, and we will have to both buy more oil from abroad, and more from state-owned companies, while American investors lose significant ground.
Palin has been a strong voice for opening ANWR to reasonable and planned development. Perhaps she needs to rethink her approach to overtaxing oil companies for their work on state lands while encouraging the use of federal lands, too.

She should have been Obama's running mate.

 

[snafu]

Sounds like Palin and Alaska's senators need to get on the ball and negotiate with the feds. Not place another tax on oil.

Yeah with a democratic majority in the senate I'm sure this will be a cake walk. But it is a top priority with politicians up here.

Hugo they're gonna come here and drill becuse this is were the oil is. So they will pay the 37.5% taxes in the lower 48 and not blink an eye but have reservations of drilling up here? That's bull .

 

[snafu]

I guess what we need to google is would it be in the best interest to lower the Federal taxes across the board or keep sending 700 billion dollars to the middle east for our oil.

 

[hugo]

Yeah with a democratic majority in the senate I'm sure this will be a cake walk. But it is a top priority with politicians up here.

Hugo they're gonna come here and drill becuse this is were the oil is. So they will pay the 37.5% taxes in the lower 48 and not blink an eye but have reservations of drilling up here? That's bull .

Snafu, the oil companies are not paying an extra 37.5% in the Gulf Coast state. The Gulf Coast states are getting 37.5% of the revenues from federal auctions of leases in newly approved zones. Alaska is not getting the same deal. You should be mad at the federal government, not oil companies.

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.
However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

She's a damn commie. Off with her head.

Daily Policy Digest
Get the DPD in your email
Get the DPD RSS Newsfeed
Daily Policy Digest Archive
Energy Issues
March 30, 2006

WINDFALL PROFITS TAX DISCOURAGES PRODUCTION
Experience with windfall taxes has not been positive, say H. Sterling Burnett and Christa Bieker of the National Center for Policy Analysis. In April 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the "Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax" to replace failed oil price controls. This was the largest tax ever imposed on an American industry and was designed to recover a portion of money politicians believed was unfairly received by oil companies. The money was earmarked to develop renewable energy, thus reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to fund low-income energy assistance programs. But the tax failed to deliver either and the Reagan administration led its repeal in 1988.

According to the Congressional Research Service:

The windfall profits tax raised a total of $40 billion, instead of the $227 billion initially projected, and generated no revenue after 1986, because oil prices fell and domestic production was lower than expected.
The tax reduced domestic oil production 3 percent to 6 percent because it increased investment risk.
Imports increased 8 percent to 16 percent because of the competitive advantage the tax gave to foreign oil companies.
It is not surprising that a windfall profits tax fails to either increase domestic production or reduce prices. When profits are penalized, there are fewer incentives to increase capacity. Oil production is risky and requires heavy initial investment in infrastructure. Meanwhile, oil prices can fluctuate. New oil may or may not be discovered. Because of these uncertainties, investment in oil production requires the ability to forecast likely outcomes. A windfall tax complicates this task. When a company is unsure what the price of oil will be at a certain point in the future and consequently unsure whether it will be penalized by the government for making a profit that year, investment risk increases, explain Burnett and Bieker.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett and Christa Bieker, "Taxing Profits, Draining Energy," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 549, March 30, 2006