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 :)
Will Obama Listen to Pelosi
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by LeBuick, Nov 6, 2008.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Didn't you support Obama because he was promising to cut taxes for those who already pay no taxes by sending them a check? -
The people who pay no taxes getting a check is a consequence of my support for Obama and not the reason I support him. what I really like, he was honest enough to say he was spreading the wealth. As opposed to others who called him a Socialist and Marxist for doing the same thing their doing. -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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: -
-
-
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 -
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. -
Windcatcher, you're talking about the dividend check. I'm talking about the higher taxes the oil company pays so that Alaskan's don't have to pay taxes.
Page 2 of 2