Palin leaves door open for possible Senate run

[snafu]

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.

Ok I will concede for now.

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

Your gonna have to behead all of the politicians because most of my info came from the democratic nominee for the senate.

 

[hugo]

Media Darling Warren Buffett Decries Obama?s Windfall Profits Tax
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
June 25, 2008 - 15:39 ET

In the past when Warren Buffett has spoken out the "super rich" needing to pay a higher tax rate, the media have hung on his every word. But, now that he has spoken out against a windfall profits tax on oil, will they notice?

Buffett said he disapproved of the windfall profits taxes in an interview with CNBC's Becky Quick on "Power Lunch" on June 25.

"I think it is very hard to have windfall taxes," Buffett said. "Steel has doubled in price. Is that a windfall for the steel producers? Sure. Corn is $7 a bushel; soybeans are at $15 a bushel. I don't think any candidate in his right mind with the number of electoral votes in farm states would say you ought to tax farms specially because they are getting a windfall."

Obama, who Buffett has pledged his support to, said on June 9 he would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," Obama said according to a June 9 Reuters story.

Buffett compared oil to other companies making money off of high commodity prices and disagreed with the principle of higher tax rates that are a result of market fluctuations.

"But they [farms] are getting a windfall from commodity prices," Buffett said. "Maybe they deserve it because commodities have been under priced, but to pick out one commodity - with copper at $3.60 a pound, you could say that the copper producers are getting a windfall. The networks are getting a windfall because of the Olympics. So, I don't think that picking anybody that's had a commodity that's increased in price a lot and saying that there's a special tax because of that makes any sense.

Sounds like Obama wants to take Palin's tax and redistribute plan national. Ronald Reagan campigned against and eventually got repealed the windfall profits tax imposed under the Jimmy "the Red" Carter administration.

 

[ImWithStupid]

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

I agree that what Palin did has socialistic implications, but as I said before, the difference is, what was done in Alaska was Alaskans benefiting from the oil companies profiting off of Alaskan resources. It wasn't the Federal government deciding, or people in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc... deciding and voting on what is to be done with Alaska's resources profits.

The federal government needs to receed back to basic Constitutional established dutys and leave the rest to the states and the people of those states to decide what is best for them. I mean, honestly, what is best or needed for someone in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklamoma, or Texas is a far cry from what is needed or best for someone in California, New York, or Florida.

To make blanket rules for everyone in every state in the US is ridiculous.

 

[snafu]

Lets go back a bit....


Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you see the government was the one who prevented the oil companies to even explore let alone drill. If they could they would. So the lands are federally owned that are holding everything up.

 

[hugo]

I agree that what Palin did has socialistic implications, but as I said before, the difference is, what was done in Alaska was Alaskans benefiting from the oil companies profiting off of Alaskan resources. It wasn't the Federal government deciding, or people in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc... deciding and voting on what is to be done with Alaska's resources profits.

The federal government needs to receed back to basic Constitutional established dutys and leave the rest to the states and the people of those states to decide what is best for them. I mean, honestly, what is best or needed for someone in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklamoma, or Texas is a far cry from what is needed or best for someone in California, New York, or Florida.

To make blanket rules for everyone in every state in the US is ridiculous.

I agree that Alaska has the right to do what they did. I do not agree that it benefits Alaska. It discourages production and reduces employment for the sake of a welfare check.

 

[wez]

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

The promise of a true free market ideology is that economically, every one starts at go and has an equal opportunity and plays by the exact same rules as everyone else til the heart stops.. Not that you'll be beautiful and smart..


It also does not promise that you will never fail, as it has with our current outgoing president. No matter how many businesses he ran into the ground, there was always some daddy's buddy there to bail him out. What was his "punishment" by the "free market"? President....


Hmmmmm.. all the bailouts happenin' now? Must be the guilt talking so he can validate his worth in this life..


Christ, I shoulda ran my dry cleaners into the ground, coulda been pres! Or at least gotten a bailout..


Free market my ass...


Government stinks ~ wez

 

[wez]

Hey Hugo.. What do think Daddy's buddies got back in return?


Me, you, and Adam Smith know it wasn't done out of the benevolence of the butcher, baker, and porno star, but out of self interest.. Right?

 

[snafu]

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

Published: November 10, 2007
http://dwb.adn.com/money/story/9443714p-9355135c.html


Published: November 22nd, 2008 02:34 AM
Alaska's high gas prices bewilder state lawmakers: Money | adn.com



She's trying.