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.
This needs to be strongly refuted. First test for the new campaign. I look forward to seeing the RATS limping away in pain.
One of my concerns about her was that I questioned whether she was in bed with big oil, well thats been answered to my satisfaction,
>>”Mark Hellenthal, a GOP pollster in Alaska sees it differently. In the state “she’s viewed ... as almost anti-oil. She’s probably pro-oil from a national perspective, but she’s not in the pocket of Big Oil. She’s fought them at every step.” <<
She is very much pro drilling which probably is not a very popular stance in Alaska especially in ANWR.
Are there other areas they can drill in Alaska first?
BIDEN: That’s a lie. That’s not true.
amend that to
BIDEN: That’s a lie, cutie. Honey, you know that’s not true. But it’s ok that you don’t know anything about politics. You’re gorgeous and that’s what really matters..
You are wrong. Polls show a majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling ANWR.
This has been reported repeatedly.
The answer may not be black or white but shades of gray.
Behold the mindset of left wing thought leading to such inane questions. Why would any reasonable person want a politician to be prejudiced either for or against a certain industrial sector?
Thats why I asked, Thanks, for the reply, I have to admit I know very little about that but know I will get the right answer here.
If you check the polls in Alaska, you will find that from Eskimos to the shrimp boaters, the people of that state overwhelmingly support increased energy production.
Not sure why you think different, but it can't be based on reality.
Palin says she supports enthusiastically so-called Big Oil and its effort to produce more energy in Alaska, but she just as adamantly opposes any type of bribes or corruption that sometimes goes along with the HUGE contracts which go along with drilling and pipelines.
Of course, the Palin detractors will try to confuse the two. But Palin has built her reputation on ridding her state, and the US, of the good ol' boy glad handing contract system.
People do not realize this, but it is in the Alaska Constitution (set up like no other state in our nation)..that Alaska’s ‘natural resources’ belong to the PEOPLE OF ALASKA!
It was proper for her to send some of that money back to the people of her state.
Thanks, I admit to not really keeping up on the issues, but now I am more inclined to want to get to know more about the drilling issue.
Palin was the perfect choice for VP for many reasons and wanting to know more about Alaska, oil and drilling is just one of the reasons.
Awareness of the issues is a good thing, I beleive that because of Palin we women will take more interest in the Oil and drilling issues.
I am so looking forward to hearing her at the convention.
Simple, Alaska has a budget surplus, the Federal government does not.
I suggest folks read more about the taxes imposed by the State of Alaska on the oil companies. This issue is not going to go away and the better informed we all are on the specific details of the Alaskan Taxation on oil, the better we will be able to answer the points made by MSM.
Here is a starting point:
When the new tax law was passed the BP's and ExxonMobiles screamed ... their profits have gone up since then.Alaska oil companies have seen their profits rise since Alaska imposed a big, and controversial, tax increase last year. That's not what either of the companies said would happen while they were opposing the tax, or even something that legislators who imposed the tax thought would happen. Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share Act was passed by the Legislature last fall at the request of Gov. Sarah Palin, who said the previous Petroleum Profits Tax was "tainted" by corruption. Some legislators are now serving federal prison time for their role in its passage. Linky Thing: Juneau Empire Story
Alaska State Taxes
State Sales Tax: No State sales and use tax.
Personal Income Taxes:No state income tax
Retirement Income: Not taxed.
Gasoline Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: $2.00/pack of 20
Facts are such burdensome little things, aren't they.
frankly, I think women know more about drilling than they let on.
State lands in Alaska there is drilling going on for gas and oil. The gas is in the trillions of cubic feet. Federal lands are beyond her jurisdiction such as ANWR the size of disneyland.
Historically, AR didn't produce much oil and gas, and their severance tax was low. But as production in Texas's Barnett Shale grew, producers began drilling in other shale formations, such as the Fayetteville Shale in AR.
After production in the Fayetteville shale grew, this past year, AR raised the severance tax.
More recently, producers leased state lands controlled by the AR Game and Fish Commission and the prospect of this agency getting the all of the lease money and the royalties has created some conflicts. Some say the schools should get part of it.
Agreed. I have no problem with states bargaining with oil companies inside their borders for a share of the pie. Windfall profits taxes are a different horse.
^^^^^^^^^Why would Exxon Mobil be reluctant to tap these gas fields?^^^^^^^^^
Because they’re afraid of the government.
Do you know any one person who doesn’t aspire as high as they should, or as high as they could because they know they’re just gonna be punished by the government anyways??
It’s the same here.
Comparing Barack Obama to Sarah Palin is a valid point even though she never enacted a windfall profit tax?
Huh?
Yeah, this article is loaded with left wing garbage.
But seeing the severance tax blatantly mistaken is as plain as day.
——— the better we will be able to answer the points made by MSM.-—————
Don’t you mean the lies?
You can’t make points if you’re arming yourself with falsehoods.
Yeah, I do that sometimes.
I still don’t understand your point though.
Um, in a small handful of situations it’s necessary.
In this situation, I’m sure we both agree that it was unnecessary.
However, the point I’m making is that the media is mistating her tax policy and they have to be doing it intentionally as a form of a smear.
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.