It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings. This is a MAJOR twisting of the meaning of what is really going on. Typical BS and I'm quite frankly sick of it.
Originally posted by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings.
Originally posted by dbates
If a lumber company gives you money for harvesting trees on your land ...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But the oil that the people in Alaska are benefiting from is NOT on their private land. It's just in the state. They don't own all of Alaska. In fact, people who rent someone else's property share in the wealth, too. The oil is not coming from their land, they did nothing to earn the money, but, because they live in the state, they share in the state's wealth.
Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
I'm looking for the part where Alaska sends that windfall tax money to the Federal government for National redistribution. Is that in there somewhere?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings.
If I haven't made it clear, let me do so now. I am not smearing Palin for sharing the wealth. I AGREE with her. I think the people of Alaska should share in the wealth of their state.
And on a larger scale, I think the people of the US should share in the wealth of their country. Especially since the wealth has been so unequally distributed in the past.
My point is that Palin's accusations of Obama are hypocritical when she supports spreading the wealth in her state (albeit with somewhat different implementation).
Originally posted by dbates
If a lumber company gives you money for harvesting trees on your land ...
But the oil that the people in Alaska are benefiting from is NOT on their private land. It's just in the state. They don't own all of Alaska. In fact, people who rent someone else's property share in the wealth, too. The oil is not coming from their land, they did nothing to earn the money, but, because they live in the state, they share in the state's wealth.
Originally posted by dbates
It's been a long-standing tradition for thousands and thousands of years that that the land owner owned the resources on their land be it water, trees, gold, or oil.
Originally posted by daddyroo45
Sharing the wealth of the country.How? What wealth does the federal government have that is not derived from the taxpayer? The majority of land is privatly owned,therefore the profits from that land belong to the owners.You my friend are comparing apples and oranges,or tilting at windmills.
Originally posted by daddyroo45
The majority of land is privatly owned,therefore the profits from that land belong to the owners.
Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
I agree, size does not matter..
State's rights do, however.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
If I own a small plot of land in Alaska, I still get the same socialist handout from Palin as my neighbor who doesn't own anything. So I'm robbed, in a sense.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
These are all irrelevant to the question at hand: tax one group, distribute to another group.
Originally posted by TheRooster
So if I understand you correctly... If the govt handed me a lease to drill for oil in your front yard, you wouldn't expect one red cent? If you had no say in it and watched me pull millions of dollars out of your front yard and turned that into billions, you would still be okay with it?
Let's say you live in a deed resrticted community and the homeowners association arranges a dividend payment for you for a portion of the profits I pull out of your front yard, does that sound like socialism to you?
Lets say you show up to my house on Holloween with a bag full of candy....
So you see BH, with all due respect, "O" is just wrong on this one, and it's okay for you to admit it, no one will think any less of you.
Originally posted by TheRooster
So if I understand you correctly... If the govt handed me a lease to drill for oil in your front yard, you wouldn't expect one red cent?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
You misunderstood. If I own a piece of private land, I should be entitled to MORE handout than my neighbor, provided are both residents. This ain't happening.
It's ridiculous, in a sense. If I move to Alaska (and in fact I was looking for jobs there after my two trips and scaling McKinley) I automatically become an "owner". That's super-commie logic! Palin is a pinko socialist.
Originally posted by daddyroo45
Alaska's land holdings are emense and revenue from that should go to the residents of the state.
Alaska doesn't discriminate between land owners and renters.