Posted on 08/31/2008 4:52:38 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Get this line:
The new tax brought in an estimated $6 billion in the last budget year, bulging Alaska's treasury with an expected surplus of as much as $9 billion. Thst enabled Palin to push a second initiative — giving each Alaskan $1,200 to help them cope with high energy costs. Sound familiar? Obama has proposed taxing the windfall profits of the five biggest oil companies and giving people $1,000 to pay for high energy costs. Palin called such financial help "a tool that must be on the table" although she differs with Obama on where the money's source. Like McCain, Palin says a national windfall profits tax on oil companies will hinder domestic energy production. Democrats are expected to be quick to ask: If it's good for Alaska, why isn't it good for the country?
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
I can only speak for myself, but this is all the confirmation I need.
We have our first media smear on Sarah Palin. They have to be purposely getting it wrong in order to push this line.
Sarah is no Jimmah. She would have shot that rabbit, skinned it, and cooked it up for breakfast.
She’s no barack obama either. The media wants you and everybody else to think that she supports windfall profits taxes when that’s simply bogus and false.
Wait a minute. The oil companies are taking resources from Alaska. Alaskans get something in return. What they do with the money is their decision. How does taxing the oil companies in general to take money from them and then distribute this to some guy in Paducah KY make sense. If the coal companies are taking coal out of Illinois and KY then tax them if you like as you would do to any business and do what you want with the money.
I mean...this is total BS. The govenor of Alaska unlike Obama...makes it easier for oil companies to drill. They in turn pay some kind of tax to the state that helps them...
You have to help a business any business grow.
severance tax
n.
“A tax imposed by a state on the extraction of natural resources, such as oil, coal, or gas, that will be used in other states.” (American Heritage Dictionary)
We need to get the word out, or else it will be seen as a distinction without a difference...
(good post, BTW)
You got it.
Welcome to media smear 101.
Yep. That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing. The media does not deserve the power that it weilds and uses dishonestly.
See post 2, follow the link. This smear started weeks ago.
The following debate exerpt is as yet fictional, but it is based on facts.
Biden-Palin Fantasy Debate Part I by Nikos Vlachos
HOST: Senator, Biden, are you still againt drilling?
BIDEN: Yes. My opponent, Mzzz Palins, I know feels differently, but the fact is, drilling today will not result in any more oil to the consumer or drop in gas prices for at least ten years. The effect on or natural wildlife and environment also needs to be taken into consideration. The drilling in Mzzzz Palinzes own state has been castatrophic. Have we forgotton the Valdez Oil spill? No, we need to be creative in finding energy alternatives and not just add more revenues in the coffers of Mzzz Palinzes’ friends at BP, Exxon and Shell. And BTW, President McCain...I mean Senator McCain also opposes drilling in ANWR.
HOST: Govenor Palin, response?
PALIN: I didn’t know that I’ve become two people. (laughing) The Alaska Oil Pipe Line has been in existence for over 30 years. It’s brought over 15 BILLION barrels of oil to our people. It has done so in a way that not only protected wildlife and the environment but carabou herds have actually flourished during this time. Politicians at the time, such as Senator Biden were AGAINST the Alaskan Pipeline and in fact, voted against it.
BIDEN: That’s a lie. That’s not true.
PALIN: Excuse me Senator, but that is not a lie. You voted against the Alaska Pipeline.
BIDEN: I voted for it.
PALIN: Senator, you may have changed your vote in the end after the measure passed, so that you were on the winning side, but initially you spoke out and voted against the pipeline. This is fact not fantasy. May I continue? Oil spills are always a potential problem, but they account for less than 1% of our ocean’s oil pollution. The vast majority comes from our own planet through underwater oil seapage. Lastly, I’ve worked closely with several countries and companies, in tapping trillions...yes trillions of natural gas that lies in Alaska. This is clean, cheap and available energy. The effects on our economy and energy reserves will be immediat. The revenues from which can be used to discover new sources of energy. And BTW Senator, Shell Oil and others you mentioned paid over $11 billion dollars in taxes last year. Alaska alone received over $10 billion dollars in oil revenues last year. If we were to follow the lead of the democratic party our country would never have drilled for oil 30 years ago in Alaska.
HOST: Senator Biden points out that Senator McCain opposes drillng in ANWR which is in your state. Do you agree with him?
PALIN: Senator McCain is four square behind drilling for oil in Alaska. He has definite concerns about drilling on federal grounds there. He’s an environmentalist of the first magnitude, and I’ve had lively discussions with him on this issue. I’ve learned some things from him and he’s learned things from me. When he’s convinced that our nation’s refuges are safe he will NOT be opposed to drilling in ANWR, an area which is less than the size of Disneyland I might add.
If they’re going to tag Gov. Palin with that, we may as well go right to calling Obama a bomb-throwing anarchist because of his friendship with William Ayers an skip the whole ‘questionable judgement” thing.
She has tangled with Exxon Mobil and other oil companies over their reluctance to develop gas fields on state land.
I don't understand. Why would Exxon Mobil be reluctant to tap these gas fields? If they did, wouldn't they make lots more money? Isn't that a good thing?
They have a very valid point. Now if every state, including California, NY, Mass, Florida, etc, wish to allow drilling off their coast then maybe there should be a little check awaiting them. No contribute, no Bens!
Here is the complication I see.
What if people of california want THEIR OWN oil check?
>>”giving each Alaskan $1,200 to help them cope with high energy costs”<<
And this is a bad thing...because...??
Good for her, no wonder they love her in Alaska
and now we are lucky enough to have her!
Having them make these comparisons is actually a good thing. I'm sure someone will point them out to her (probably in the Palin/Plugs debate) and when they do point, they will pull back a bloody numb. I am confidnet in her ability to wield the sword of truth in these confrontations.
And I thought I over bought popcorn!
The internal polls probably show that Palin is a positive so Obama is try to mooch.
The tiny kleptocrat from chicago.
The NYT must have to sit around a while to come up with a reason their complete endorsement of Dumbo-Ears is such a flop.
“Hey, Just blame it on the broad”!!!!
-evil people
Nationalizing companies is NOT the same as a severence tax. Once again, the lsm shows it’s desparation.
The difference is that Palin taxed the oil companies and gave the people the money directly. Obama will tax the oil companies and say that he is going to use the money for his programs to benefit the people.
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.