Palin’s smarter than people think, says — Ralph Nader

Hot Air ^ | SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

[Finny]

Palin’s ACES legislation does not qualify as a winfall profits tax. It’s a production tax that rides independent of and prior to profits per se.

Well stated!

[reasonisfaith]

You pick your candidates based on other people’s opinions?!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

If you cannot post rationally and maturely, then do yourself a favor and don't post at all.

You first, Jack.

[reasonisfaith]

Wait a minute!

I thought you didn’t have to “re-evaluate the fact” that you like her until this thread came out, with the information that Nader likes her? (As you say in post # 7.)

But in fact, you haven’t liked her all along because of the other issue?

[heshtesh]

Seems like someone’s got a BS problem, and i’m not refering to you.

[Bigtigermike]

It is not a windfall tax, as championed by liberals to capture even greater revenue during periods of larger profits. Instead, it is a tax that is levied on production and the loss of a resource.

State severance taxes charged on production of oil and gas and minerals are common throughout the United States. Also sometimes called “production taxes,” they’re charged by the state from beneath whose land valuable resources are extracted, and they’re designed not to punish the energy companies, but to recompense the state for its loss of a non-replaceable resource — one that must be quantified and taxed upon removal, if it is ever to be taxed at all. Severance taxes are therefore based on production from within the state, not on profits earned by the company extracting that production — even though the production may be measured in, and the tax assessed upon, the market value or gross revenues (as measured in dollars) received for that production, rather than an “in kind” delivery to the state in barrels or cubic feet as such. See, e.g., Tex. Tax Code §§ 201.051 & 202.051

Alaska’s previous version of its severance tax had been negotiated behind closed doors by defeated Gov. Frank Murkowski, a few top state legislators (some of whom are now in prison for corruption), and energy lobbyists. One of the campaign planks upon which Gov. Palin ran for office was replacing that tax with one negotiated in the open with full transparency; and the resulting tax was, indeed, slightly more favorable to the State of Alaska.

Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share,” or ACES), while it did produce a slight increase in the top tax rate (from 22.5% to 25%)—even as it also “hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don’t face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall”—wasn’t anything like a “windfall profits tax.” It was, rather, an effort to clean up Alaskan politics by writing the tax code on the oil companies out in the open, where everyone could see it, in order to replace the tax law that the oil companies had pretty much written to suit themselves in a back room away from public scrutiny. It was about replacing crony capitalism with a more ethical way of doing business.

[Finny]

Great and informative post. Thanks for making it so easy to understand.

*self ping for future refrence

[Sola Veritas]

“seeing Liberal heads exploding everywhere. Would be quite a clean up job.”

Naw, we would just revel in the gloo!

[Sola Veritas]

“You Palinistas’ tendencies to hyperventilate and exaggerate rival those of the Paulettes’ to do the same.”

You are forgeting the Perryphiles....they are over the top as well.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I hate to call a fellow FReeper an idiot, but did you actually READ the article?

[Sudetenland]

Do you routinely make an ass of yourself by not reading the entire thread?

[Sudetenland]

Do you even comprehend the meaning of sarcasm? Clearly not.

[Sudetenland]

"reasonisfaith" is a euphemism for "irrationallyattached" I guess.

You Palinistas are really amusing. For anyone to have any questions about Palin then they are automatically haters. Apparently the concept of liking someone, but not completely buying everything they believe in is beyond your ability to grasp. People who make choices out of emotional attachment don't question. People who make choices based on reason--people who think--always ask questions.

People who react without thought and attack without examining the facts are scary people. Those who cannot understand the difference between not supporting a candidate and hating that candidate are frightening. It is frightening to think that people like you, who view dissent as attack and questions as hatred, are allowed to vote. Voting should be a rational act, not an emotional one.

You lack the ability to discern sarcasm from serious comment, you hate without reason any with whom you disagree, and you attack any who choose to support someone other than you pet candidate.

YOu and those like you (heshtesh, editor-surveyor, perfect_rovian_storm) clearly define the Palinista. There are others, like Springfield who support Palin but are able to discern questions from hatred and are interested in a rational discourse. Lucky for Sarah that she has supporters like Springfield Reformer who are capable of carrying on an informed discussion.

Those of you who cannot discern the difference between questions and attacks, or between disagreement and hatred, have serious personal problems. Defensiveness and anger are symptoms of fear and insecurity, not certainty and confidence.

Sarah is a bright, charismatic, capable woman who is ill-served by those of her followers who act like members of a cult.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

You Perrycites are really amusing. For anyone to have any questions about Perry’s shocking record of corruption then they are automatically haters. Apparently the concept of investigating a candidate’s background before anointing them the Republican nominee is beyond your ability to grasp. People who make choices out of emotional attachment don’t question. People who make choices based on reason—people who think—always ask questions.

People who react without thought and attack those who examine the facts are scary people. Those who cannot understand the difference between not supporting a candidate and hating that candidate are frightening. It is frightening to think that people like you, who view dissent as attack and questions as hatred, are allowed to vote. Voting should be a rational act, not an emotional one.

You lack the ability to discern an unacceptable candidate from an acceptable one, you hate without reason any with whom you disagree, and you attack any who choose to support someone other than you pet candidate.

YOu and those like you (I won’t stoop to your level of scumbaggery by naming a bunch of your fellow Perry Zombies.) clearly define the Perrycite. It is unfortunate for Perry that he has supporters like you who are incapable of carrying on an informed discussion.

Those of you who cannot discern the difference between questions and attacks, or between disagreement and hatred, have serious personal problems. Defensiveness and anger are symptoms of fear and insecurity, not certainty and confidence.

[Sudetenland]

The first thing necessary is to understand the difference between attacks based on already disproven assertions and genuine questions. In Perry's case, the disproven include, that he supported Hilary care, that he has done nothing to secure the border, that he is a RINO, that he is weak on education, that the jobs that were created in Texas were mostly minimum wage jobs, etc.

On the other hand, disagreement with his overall view on illegal immigration leans more towards amnesty, or his ill-considered action on Gardasil is legitimate. Real disagreement with policy stands are legitimate, spreading lies is not.

I'm glad you agree with my assessment of you Palinistas, however you assessment of who constitutes an "unacceptable" candidate is lamentable.

For me, anyone on the debate dais is acceptable when compared to Obama, however only conservatives on that debate panel are preferable (Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum). Palin falls into the second category--right behind Perry.

Both Perry and Palin are at the top of the list, but Perry wins out, in my opinion, based on his superior experience and record of achievement.

[reasonisfaith]

I think it’s very significant that Nader recognizes Palin’s capabilities and the value of her unique political position.

If my interpretation of your intent was truly inaccurate and it hurt your feelings, this was not my intention and I apologize.

But I will continue to comment here when see contradictory statements regarding subject matter that I think is worth the effort required for us to reach an understanding.