dulios says: It's almost funny, isn't it? This article is so backwards it's not funny. The state of ALASKA (read- not your state) had a record dividend from OIL that came from Alaskan territory. That is called reaping what you sow. Obama intends to reap what he didn't sow. Ahhh, I don't abuse the "block" feature, but I'm a big fan of the "hide comments" feature. Thanks for stopping by, though, my friend. "Collectively" we own the resources and reap the rewards. LOL. "Collectively" we own the resources and reap the rewards. LOL.I know! Can you imagine if the word "collective" were uttered by Obama? Holy holy cow! I think that is a great idea, NYS is going to let the gas companies drill on state owned land. It would be a great way to spread the wealth and not just put in some fund, that the politicians just blow away. arkc39, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Letting the gas companies drill in the New York watershed using high water pressure techniques may ruin your water supply. New York City is the only large metropolitan (that I know of) that doesn't treat its water because it is filtered naturally through its acquifers on its journey from upstate New York. Read the following clip. Dangers of natural gas from shale using high pressure H2O — Comment removed by clipper — washy. There has to be a fairer way (the bane of this argument from any perspective is that “fair” is terribly subjective). The issue of taxation is so much more incredibly complex than any of us can deal with here in this limited medium. But I can see where, at a basic level, taxation of income and taxation of natural resources can’t be held to the same absolutist black-and-white standards. oops on my firefox f*ck-up Damn Dulios, You never fail to amaze me. But of course you would like to use the hide the comment feature. People with an agenda that comes before everything else would do ....well, anything. You scare me, you really do. keeth, sweetie, I accidentally removed a comment of yours, meaning to remove the spam comment. Sorry! chestnut, sweetie, some people never have anything interesting to say. So, I hide their comments to be spared the utter boredom. I only block the abusive. You, chestnut, are neither blocked nor hidden. I feel better now.... As someone who supports the idea of free enterprise, I also happen to think that a degree of socialism isn't a bad thing, especially when we're talking about conglomerates who earn obscenely large sums of money, and whom (from an outside-US perspective) are the ones Republican policies seem to be protecting. From what I understand, it's not the case where wholesale socialism is being promoted here. Unbridled/uncontrolled capitalism, at the end of the day, does have its casualties, typically those whose only "crime" is being on the wrong end of the food chain. a degree of socialismThat's how our system works here. We call it a social democracy and it "floats" on capitalism. Free enterprise is good, but a free people, is better. Unbridled capitalism is just some people who take YOUR resources (coal, lumber, whatever, or the resources of other countries) and make money and then it's YOU, the taxpayer, who gets the water supply polluted, tops chopped off mountains or their forrests decimated, etc. Then it's the taxpayer who has to pay for, or suffer the consequences, BESIDES having to pay to buy back the resources they took. In a fair society, the corporations pay taxes for the privilege of being allowed to harvest YOUR resources A... The end of the food chain is getting pretty big over here, thanks again to the deregulation allowed by the puppets of the capitalists. (And we are doing better than many at the moment) From what I can gather, the banks run by the horrid, terrorist Muslims, are the only ones not bothering the IMF. No wonder they are dubious of capitalism. You, chestnut, are neither blocked nor hidden.That's right! At least you disagree with respect, not have a meltdown. The current Socialist candidate for President of the United States (Amazing! There is such a guy) -- was on a TV Talk & Comedy show last night. (The Daily Show). It was hilarious. He bristled with barely controlled anger. He was very offended that "socialism had been slandered in this way." "Progressive taxation is not socialism," he said, foaming at the mouth. Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, for gods'sake was a supporter of progressive taxation." "Every single European country and Australia, New Zealand,the U.S. have progressive taxation! 80% of the world's economist support progressive taxation." You may not like Obama's tax plan, but it's not socialism http://www.kansascity.com... Here in the midwest, it's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. In the summer, I cool my house; in the winter, I heat it. In the summer it's tempting to think heat is a bad thing; in the winter, cold seems awful. So what shall I choose for my life? Cold or hot? Freeze or roast? Ridiculous question! And so it is with unrestricted capitalism and totally controlled socialism - they are extremes, either one of which is disastrous. We use elements of each to keep ourselves in the middle zone, adding or subtracting each as needed. To call someone a socialist because they see a need for regulation is like saying I will burn my house down because I like to heat it in winter. go ahead and delete those other two posts of mine up there. those were cuz firefox wasn't showing me what was really there. puszi. i can see the difference between taxing individual income and taxing profits on oil exploration. that oil is in alaska, so why not spread the profits from their land to all people? i'd like to see a lesser percentage of AKs oil profits shared with the rest of the country as well; it is one nation, after all. i can see napster's point (except the part about obama). that being said, palin has no advantage over obama. they both said "spread/share the wealth." and what's more, the mccain camp opposes windfall profits taxes on oil corporations, which is what is done in AK. oops. i'd like to see a lesser percentage of AKs oil profits shared with the rest of the countryMaybe that's what all the succession stuff was about. She doesn't wasn't to "spread the wealth" too much? One thing's certain - she has precious little awareness of what the principles she preaches look like in real life. This is a very slippery slope we're on here. Why do many here (as I do) fervently support equal rights, but oppose them when it comes to tax burdens? Why should anyone pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else? If we eliminated all exemptions, would you be in favor of this? tax burdensMaybe it's a cultural thing. I don't see taxes as a burden at all. I pay them gladly. If they want more, to make things even better, they can ask, tell us what the money is for, and we'll think about it. It could be for the elderly or for the environment, a Metro, etc. My country ie. gives you a world class education, free healthcare etc and makes sure you lack NOTHING to make the very best of yourself and utilise your full potential, without worry, even in hard times, or in sickness or in old age etc..When I left uni, I left with no debt, nor were my parents indebted or fleeced, nor did I have to work at all, while studying. The taxes MY parents paid, were passed... Oh, I know Americans are very charitable to those who have less, but consider this. The way we do it, is kind of like buying in bulk. In America each has to pay from his own pocket for everything and that is more expensive, than when all contribute and buy in bulk. We get a lot of bang for our bucks that way. . Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and McCain's hero, was a champion of the progressive tax code that we have today. Reagan's administration championed the Earned Income Tax Credit that takes money from the rich and gives it to the working poor. If Obama is a socialist (and I don't think he is), then both Teddy and Reagan were also socialists. Hey Dulios, HAVE A HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! ....and leave those McCain/Palin signs right where they are Why should anyone pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else?Easy. Because if you earn minimum wage, you have no money left after food and lodging and basics. Survival is greater than 100% of your income - though it make not look like it until the car breaks down and you can't get to work. If you're very wealthy, survival consumes less than 1% of your income. The state is not taking away your hope of survival. To one, 15% of income would mean no food. To the other, 80% of income would be mere incovenience. Obama seeks only to return the 35% top bracket to where it was before Bush, 39.6. In LBJ's day, it was wayyy higher than that. We've been on... It is sooooooooooooooooooooo different in most of Europe. Sounds great. Very comfortable way to live. Less stress. Why The USA so different? --Perhaps the fact that we are not all the same is part of the reason why. We are not all Irish. We are not all Italian. We are not all Nordic. We are not all anything. We are completely pluralist, many cultures, many religions. This makes it easier to divide people, to set one group against another. Nobody wants to work for a common interest but for the interest of themselves or their own group. It's a dog eat dog world in the USA. That is the best way to look at it. Consider how many murders happen every year in your nation/any other nation. We... |
View the Top Clips from October 28, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|