Posted on 03/28/2010 3:00:13 PM PDT by RED SOUTH
“I see your hate doesn’t just stop at Palin your a Bush hater also. At least you are an equal oppurtunity hater. The hate is strong in this one....”
I’m a conservative. I don’t support liberals. To you, that makes me a “hater”. THAT is a Dem argument.
“All taxes are theft? that’s funny right there. You just called every founding father a thief.”
What do you think the Revolution was over?
Taxation without representation was the rallying cry. Which means that the people should have a say over which taxes should be imposed. Not NO TAXES are you that dense?
please go study some history before you make a bigger a*s out of yourself. If that is possible after you called Reagan and Palin liberals.
“Which means that the people should have a say over which taxes should be imposed. Not NO TAXES are you that dense?”
Actually, the lack of say was one thing - what was taxed was another. Of course, you’re the one defending the government revenue as a conservative goal. The idea that a tax on an industry would encourage more investment in that industry flies in the face of reality and “common sense”.
A tax is a dead weight on the market.
Revenue enables spending. Spending enables growth. I’m for a minimum of both of those. You aren’t. You’re fine with bigger government, aren’t you?
“please go study some history before you make a bigger a*s out of yourself”
Why don’t you take your prescription and study history? You clearly haven’t studied much of anything. Have you even read Paine’s Common Sense? Somehow, I doubt it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
It’s a pity when a liberal source like that would see more clearly than an alleged “conservative” like you.
ROFL...You are that dense.....stop before you hurt yourself....do they allow sharp objects around you.,/p>
If you tax a business/neighborhood to improve the streets, roads, security, etc the business and community grow. If on the other hand you have a tax free haven and thus no revenue to improve any of the REQUIRED amenities of said community that community will fall in disrepair and die. If otoh you tax that business and community too much for things other than the REQUIRED amenities of said community that community will fall into corruption, sloth, disrepair and die.
the way to determine which tax is correct is to give the people as much local control and say over what gets taxed and what doesn't and how to use that revenue to further the local needs.
"spending enables growth?" the deuce you say! And growth is bad. We should all move back into caves, crap in holes, and eat bugs
"I'm fine with bigger government? whatever gave you that idea? it's clear you can not stay on topic. I see complex thinking is very hard for you. Just because something is bigger does not make it bad. If the government is bigger because the country grew and it needed to grow to continue to provide its constitutional mandated responsibilities to the people,fine and dandy. If the government is bigger because it has taken additional power and additional responsibilities then no. I know that is a hard concept to understand but try. Your black/white thinking is childish.
The idea that a tax on an industry would encourage more investment in that industry flies in the face of reality and “common sense"
There you go ignoring Facts again. refresher for you: The Revenue Department study released Thursday said oil company capital spending on the North Slope has increased since the higher taxes were imposed and at $2.2 billion stands at the highest level in Alaska's history
The Revenue Department study released Thursday said oil company capital spending on the North Slope has increased since the higher taxes were imposed and at $2.2 billion stands at the highest level in Alaska's history
“The Revenue Department study released Thursday said oil company capital spending on the North Slope has increased since the higher taxes were imposed and at $2.2 billion stands at the highest level in Alaska’s history”
What you don’t seem to get is that coincided with the huge runup in the price of oil. That wasn’t DUE to the tax.
Keep on prattling about “hate”. Emotional arguments is all you have to defend your pet politician. For me, see proved she wasn’t a conservative when she campaigned for a liberal in a primary where there was a conservative in opposition.
“If you tax a business/neighborhood to improve the streets, roads, security, etc the business and community grow.”
This was a windfall tax, not improving the “streets” in the tundra.
“And growth is bad. We should all move back into caves, crap in holes, and eat bugs”
Growth in government is bad.
” If the government is bigger because the country grew and it needed to grow to continue to provide its constitutional mandated responsibilities to the people,fine and dandy. If the government is bigger because it has taken additional power and additional responsibilities then no. I know that is a hard concept to understand but try. Your black/white thinking is childish.”
The goverment isn’t growing to provide its “constitutional mandated responsibilities”. It’s growing to provide “gimmes” and buy votes.
You keep spinning, there. It’s entertaining.
Maybe you need to freshen up on the Law of supply and demand while you are studying history and political science from the ACME University.
“If your view was true it wouldn’t matter. Investment is suppose to DECREASE when a tax is increased per you.”
Investment increased due to the massive increase in the price of oil. A tax reduces that. There were two competing effects. BP invested in the Liberty fields to AVOID Alaska’s tax.
“You are 100% wrong. “
Nope. I’m not.
“Maybe you need to freshen up on the Law of supply and demand while you are studying history and political science from the ACME University.”
This is hilarious. Truly hilarious.
This was a windfall tax, not improving the “streets” in the tundra. Sure it is....It's correct name is a production tax. It rises and falls based on the price of the underlying commodity which is owned by the people of AK. It becomes a "windfall profit" tax if the oil companies owned the resources and the government was simply taking more tax as the price of the underlying oil rose. Since the oil companies do not own the oil in AK and instead the people own it per their Constitution. The oil companies simply own the rights to drill it, produce it and sell it. The value that the state sells its oil to the oil companies increases as the price increases. Of course liberals call it a "windfall profit" tax because they do not understand private property rights. Newsflash. ALL resources on state lands in AK are owned by the people of AK per its Constitution. As such the government of AK is duty bound to get top dollar for those resources.
“And yet somehow this TAX did not reduce investment but spurred investment to historic highs. those damn facts and reality invading your cozy worldview again.”
It’s simple. The quantity supplied went up as price went up. However, the tax didn’t increase the quantity supplied nor did it increase investment. There is usually more than one factor operative and you have to consider all of them. To say the *tax* increased investment is idiotic.
Palin was vote buying.
“Growth in government is bad.”
Yes, growth in government is bad. The Contract with America said the same thing.
“you think the government the size of the 1840 congress could govern this country today?”
A Federal government that size would be about right.
A Federal government that size would be about right.
Yeah sure it is. your clueless. If you really believe that there is no reason talking to you.
“Yeah sure it is. your clueless. If you really believe that there is no reason talking to you.”
90% of the federal government is unconstitutional.
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.