Will Obama Listen to Pelosi

NO!

Indeed, I firmly believe Obama will be the most exploited, used and abused President ever...

I expect that all of his staff and cabinet positions will be dictated by the demoncratic power elite...

Mike Sr.

Note: the opposite party is repugnantcan

 

And you think a State with no taxes and sufficient revenues to send it's citizens a check is a bad thing?

Didn't you support Obama because he was promising to cut taxes for those who already pay no taxes by sending them a check?

 

Don't be too hard on LB; he's just echoing the D talking points!:laugh:

The Ds are scared silly about 2010 mid-terms already, (they know the Ds cannot/will not keep all those rosy promises) and they are just trying to pave the way to make sure Palin is a "nobody" with "no influence" by then.

Why else keep hammering the election loser???????? H-m-m-m-m-m-m-m???:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

Which of the two questions that I asked are you refering to as a statement?

Why, pray tell, did you support him?

The monies sent to the citizens of Alaska were royalties paid to the State of Alaska for the oil that the oil companies were extracting from the ground in Alaska. It is proper and not at all Socialist or Marxist to in turn distribute those royalties to the citizens of the State which owns the lands. Or is it your belief that States hold large tracts of land for their own enrichment and not in trust for the people?

 

Try to keep up. No one is taking from the oil companies. The oil companies are buying the oil which they are taking out of the ground. The money is then going to the citizens of the State which holds the land in trust for those citizens.

No, Obama said that he wants to tax people making over $250,000 - not just companies. Further a tax is not payment for something received. There is a difference whether you care to see or admit it yourself.

How does that work? In Michigan the taxes which I pay at the pump go the Federal coffers and to the State of Michigan. Alaska does not have the authority to tax me for products purchased in Michigan.

Of course all companies include the cost of material purchased in the price when sold - along with all other direct and indirect costs - unless they want to sell at a loss.

You seem to be dangerously close to the realization that Obama's tax increases on the rich are ultimately going to cost the not so rich too.

 

Unlimited drilling in every nook and cranny, is a slogan by leftist propaganda mongers. Not responsible people seeking energy independence.

No one in this day believes there are many risks associated with drilling, except dry holes....We aren't destroying dear earth. Couldn't even if it was our goal..

 

I wouldn't have a problem with drilling, as long as it is nationalized and is done by the government. We can then use the proceeds to pay down the national debt, as well as the TRILLIONS that the current POTUS has spent during his 8 years in office.

Regards,
BiR

 

Once again.....

sloooooooooooooooooooooooowly:

The resources belong to the people in Alaska.
For example.....
If I own land...... and I do....
If an oil company decides to drill..... and some have... less than 20 miles north of me.
But if my land were near enough by so that the oil pumped out of the ground also flowed under my land.....
I would be entitled to royalties. And my county would or could do as it has.... tax the oil to offset expenses of local government and infrastructure which both supports the industry and is depreciated by wear..... such as roads for heavier equipment where heavy truck don't usually run in a local country area... and additional monitoring to ensure all regulations and policies are enforced which assure the safe removal of oil from the earth without contamination of the water table or the wetlands.... or the farm land.

In the case of Alaska, the land is large, people are clustered within communities: Much of what is eaten and used for building is imported/transported with increased distance, expense, and time. The winters are long and extreme in cold requiring an expensive outlay for energy by the people......Energy which is purchased at competitive prices as the rest of the states with the added cost of transportation . The state has a surplus of royalties from the resources in the ground which is pumped out by the oil companies for their profit: To benefit the citizens of Alaska, the royalties are returned to them which brings their austerity into balance. It neither rewards the people for their choosing to live there but neither does it work to increase their burden or expenses... make that taxes.... to make their numbers more difficult to maintain.

Royalties returned to the people is not redistribution of the wealth... It is a return on resources which belong to them but which have no value without the industry which harvested it from the earth and refines it so it is consumable.



Taking tax dollars from people to give back to a few people through programs.... is a horse of a different color.....no pun intended. Royalties and taxes are not the same.

The former is going to be paid by oil companies, and other mineral interest no matter what. It is trading something of value which is possessed by person(s)for something of value. It is like a writer with intellectual property.... but he makes nothing on it without the industry which publishes and markets his work. When it is sold, it is taxed, and profits, and overheads of marketing and printing paid.... but the author deserves a return (royalties) for his labor and composition so that his work is shared and others profit from his sharing: Otherwise he may keep his manuscripts, but noone else profits from it while it remains solely in his possession...sight unseen.