Calling royalties "taxes" is either dishonest or ignorant (unless it's explicitly stated that they are severance taxes).
There is nothing un-conservative about what Palin did with the oil companies. In fact, quite the opposite.
You're right. She's the most progressive candidate EVER! In fact, the Dems should be tripping over themselves trying to get her to switch sides.
Congratulations! You have won an argument I had no intention of having. Go celebrate with a nice chardonnay or a good cab.
now she reads the papers !
I don't see how wealth is any the less socialized whether you call it tax or royalty.
I'll bite. Care to flesh this out?
If you want to avoid arguments, you shouldn't make claims you can't back up.
.. we have not had a progressive president since LBJ. palin would be just another in the long line of neoliberals we have had since carter started this economic trend and reagan took off with it. obama belongs on that list and palin would fall right in line.
The problem with factchecking The Audacity of Hope is that there are basically no facts to check. How can one fact-check meaningless pla udes and endless clichés? If ones want to stretch it, I suppose one could fact-check pretty much the underlying theme of the book - for example, the idea that (paraphrasing) "America is more weak and broken than at any time since WWII" or that "in recent years we lost the civility that have always reigned in DC".
But even considering this, I can easily point factual lies off the top of my head: his claim that the majority of national debt is a "direct" result of Bush tax cuts (I hope I don't need to explain why is this a lie) or his claim about the declining funding of the national health ins utes during the Bush administration when it actually increased by absurd sums.
Maybe you can tell me what's so conservative about Sarah Palin, mogrovejo. I have a hard time seeing it.
As I said, it was either dishonesty or ignorance. If you don't see it, it's ignorance. What's exactly the "wealth" being "socialized"?
This what?
Let me get this right...
If Obama ins utes a 'royalty' on all companies of a 5% of their income in order to finance universal healthcare, then conservatives would be OK with this?
Furthermore, it would be totally in-line with conservative ideals?
If the sovereign increases the royalty, the company must pay more. What it pays is money. How is that not wealth? Functionally, how is it any different from taxation?
What is intrinsically conservative about giving money Alaska takes from oil companies directly to its residents?
I still don't understand what is the wealth being socialized - do you mean the oil? The profits from the oil exploration? And of course companies don't need to pay more.
A tax is the confiscation of the property of a particular industry, a royalty is a price for the use of an asset. This is extremely basic.
Accordingly to the Cons ution, the state of Alaska owns their sub-soil resources. To whom they should give the money that results from that? To you? To the oil companies?
The result is the same, but I see your point.
Just proves she has a good future. Some people lover her, and the others love to hate her.
Do you think that the saying is only applying to Alaska? The ideological dispute might have something to do with laws by liberals trying to increase the oil and gas prices to get people to use less.
Do you mean what has she done already, or what are her stated conservative principles? I think I can help but need to know what exactly you don't understand.
No, it's not the same. They cons ute completely different incentives. Case in point is precisely Gov. Palin's decision when compared with the far-left, namely Obama, to implement windfall profits taxes on oil companies: the later is a great incentive to inefficiency and puts the subjects at a compe ive disadvantage, the royalty takes effect after the break-even price and is an incentive for oil companies to produce more efficiently, maintain their areas (remember the Exxon spill?) and start exploring the leased lands that otherwise they'd ignore (as it actually happened).
The anti-Palin columns of the last two days are like your guidebook to identifying the second-hander hacks that populate the opinion world.
Using that particular photo in the cover and the entire article are a hatchet-job - those denying it are obviously allowing their political passions to prejudice their judgement.
Nothing to see here though: Newsweek is a quickly declining magazine, on the brink of disappearing, trying to sell itself to the niche of far-left radicals to survive (for the record, I believe they'll fail). I don't think anyone still sees Newsweek as an "impartial" news outlet.
I wish she would just go away. She brings out the worst in both her conservative supporters and her liberal critics.
i didn't even know there were any impartial news outlets.
LOL, you just stole my thought...
Why is Palin supposed to be immune to harsh criticism? I don't get this from her followers at all. It's a lot like the god complex they built around Bush years ago when you weren't a real American if you knew Bush and Cheney were full of and said so.
I have no idea. Why are you asking me that, if you don't mind my curiosity?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
