Posted on 08/09/2011 4:46:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
While I was doing research for another blog post, I happened upon a lamestream media (LA Times) story from 2008 about the massive budget surplus that accumulated under Sarah Palin’s bountiful watch as governor of Alaska.
Try to imagine waking up one morning and reading a newspaper article in which the experts quoted had something like this to say about our nation’s federal budget:...
(Excerpt) Read more at californians4palin.blogspot.com ...
I do not believe that number includes the federal tax dollars collected from the oil companies.
Also, when most of the state is held by the federal government and not released to become income producing, it should be no surprise it takes money to support it.
Release the land, sell oil leases and collect the revenue. Keep millions of acres as Parks and Refuges and it takes money to support it.
Can you name a blogger that made the request and was denied or ignored?
It seems to me a happy middle ground would be for the full article to be posted along with a link requesting "Click through if you liked this article" or something along those lines. This would avoid the plague of direct blog-pimping and those articles that are worthwhile to people will generate traffic to the blog.
Just my .02
Yes, I would actually tend to agree. My arguments are more made because I think the underlying premise of thackney's arguments are immoral on their face.
There ARE blatant blog pimps who just want to post one line from some piece of junk article so as to drive hits back. And yes, I can understand JimRob wanting to protect FR from being flooded with drivel.
There are other bloggers, however, who literally spend a whole afternoon crafting an excellent piece of writing and who deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, at least in some small way, and who naturally figure that they'll post up a fair use section for people to go to their blog, read, and then discuss on FR. There's a world of difference between the two, yet they are both treated the same way, and their content is uniformly treated as the property of Free Republic if they want anybody at all to read it.
That's not right.
One idea I had to perhaps remedy would be to develop a way for FReepers and the FR management to work together to actively distinguish between the good stuff and the rubbish (because, let's face it, in the blogosphere, Sturgeon's Law most definitely applies). Bloggers who get a good reputation for producing insightful posts that obviously go beyond the level of angry, barely-literate incoherent rants could be granted greater "posting privileges," while true out and out blog pimps would perhaps not be allowed to post at all. That way, there's no theft involved, and FR is protected from being overwhelmed by garbage, while genuinely good material sees the light of day.
I'm not a blogger. I have a blog, but it's not political, I haven't really done anything with it for a year, and when I did put up posts from it on FR, they went into the Religion section and were posted in full. So my interest here is not in blog pimping.
I am, however, an aspiring writer, so I perhaps do have an exaggerated sense of copy property rights. I sympathise with good bloggers who do find themselves with the choice of either not being noticed at all, or else giving free copy away to FR.
FWIW, if I were a blogger (and I would naturally be producing the sort of good copy that would make the grade here at FR *gronk gronk*), I wouldn't want the discussion to take place on my own blog - I would want it to take place here, since that's where most of the people are. I don't think most bloggers really want discussion to take place on their blogs - if nothing else, that's just a headache to police the comments.
No, because I don't have access to JimRob's email account nor to the inner workings of Free Republic.
Can you name who made such a request, and it was granted?
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
The above list is frequently updated. It contains some rather minor, small-time publications.
You previous post seemed to believe that people other than Jim Robinson should get to decide what is worthy on Jim Robinsons’s site. It is his call to make and the many sites listed on the link above have availed themselves to process established.
Some sites appear to allow full content posted and Free Republic requires a link back to the source. This allows the reader to see another content if they like what they see.
The issue is that bloggers don't have the same protection. If they want to get noticed at all (which is sort of the purpose of writing something in the first place...), then they are forced to give free copy to FR. That's coercive theft of electronic property. Much of this because your average blogger doesn't have the resources to sue, unlike a major news organisation or website would.
I'm not deciding what worthy to be posted on JimRob's site - I am, however, suggesting prudent options that might help make JimRob's site better in its overall useability and content. Sure - it's JimRob's call, but wise people listen to wise counsel. My interest here is to see FR be better and more widely known while at the same time seeing bloggers protected by theft. I wouldn't repeatedly loan JimRob my car without expecting him to fill it up, and perhaps provide some renumeration for constant use. Why should a blogger continually provide content to JimRob without expecting that they might at least be able to see some traffic back to their site?
You don't have to like it but the fact is that Alaska is a welfare state. The IRS itself put the number at $1.84 received for every $1.00 sent. Those of us in net-payer states are subsidizing Alaska.
That is the fact of it.
You only want to count part of the taxes being collected. When ConocoPhillips and BP send in their huge check from corporate headquarters, that headquarters is not in Alaska.
Million acre parks don’t generate money, they take money.
Open the land for productive use, limit the federal ownership to something more reasonable than nearly 2/3 the entire state.
Hey, what happened to providing me a link to your blog?
What blog are you referring to?
According to the Alaska Dept. of Revenue the state received an estimated $12.1 Billion in oil production revenue in FY 2008.
http://www.dor.alaska.gov/2011%20OG%20Tax%20Report%201-18-2011%20on%20Letterhead.pdf
That's right - $12.1 BILLION for a state with a population of under 700,000.
And, they still functioned as a welfare state, receiving $1.84 from the rest of us for every $1.00 of federal tax collected within the state.
How hard do you think it is to have a clean balance sheet with those numbers?
I want don't agree is that all the Federal Money that is generated because of Alaska is reported in that number.
Washington State has a large amount of barge traffic and airline flights to Alaska. Alaska is the reason that business continues, but the federal tax dollars collected due to that Alaska business is reported under Washington State. Same with Cruise lines, Texas Oil companies, etc.
Also, Alaska is forced by Federal Ownership of most of the land within the state to be non-producing. Do this to any other state and see how productive they can be. How productive would New York be if the Feds took over most of the State?
I'm not suggesting that Alaska deserves to be a “welfare state”. I saying that most of the state is held hostage by the Feds and not allowed to be productive. The problem lies with the Feds and not with Alaska.
For example, the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska is 23.5 million acres. That is bigger than the entire state of Indiana. It was specifically set aside back in 1923 for the production of resources. For years ConocoPhillips, Anadarko and others having been trying to get permission to produce the oil on that property. Year after year the feds deny permits and otherwise delay. They have changed designation of areas previously set aside for resource development into yet more protected land. Isn't 100 million acres enough of Alaska to be parks and wildlife? How much is really needed?
Given the fact that Alaska received $12.1 Billion in oil tax revenues and received $1.84 in federal money for every dollar of federal tax it collected, my point is that the proposition is ludicrous.
I understand what you are saying about federal corporate tax not being included in the calculation but I am saying that, whether or not that is true, it is irrelevent to the topic.
I hope not. Part of the massive budget was a massive tax. It drove business out of the state. I was one of the ones that left partly because of it. At a time when the oil business was booming in Texas and other areas, Alaska was falling. The feds contribute to this problem but just as the foothills of the Brooks Range was starting exploration, new taxes shut most of it down.
Alaska has shale as well as the booming areas in the lower 48. But state taxes along with the federally controlled areas keep it from being developed.
it is irrelevent to the topic
When you look at inflow versus outflow, but only count a portion of one side of the equation, it becomes very relevant.
It would be like looking at the federal dollars in and out of a military base or Washington D.C. Of course they are in the red and not balanced. Unfortunately, the feds operate Alaska the same way. Release the land for production, even if kept in federal ownership, and the books could easily be balanced.
We are essentially on the same page. Have a good day....gotta get to work now.
You have more than one now? Then all of them!
Titus, Titus, the blogs, the blogs.
All the best—GGG
Hi GGG - I think you have me confused with somebody else. I don’t have any blogs, except an old nearly-defunct devotional one that I haven’t posted to for months.
The associated blog died after about two weeks once I realised I just didn't have time to keep up with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.