Still at it, cat? Spreading that lie? DEFINE "WINDFALL PROFITS TAX." If one defines it such that a business is penalized more the more profit it earns, then Palin DID THE OPPOSITE in Alaska.
FReepers, lurkers -- I URGE YOU to do your own due diligence on this. Don't take my word for it and don't take catfish's word for it. Just google "Palin oil windfall profits tax Alaska" or some such mix, and start reading. First you'll come across standard MSM articles, in particular one poublished in the Seattle Times (I think that's the paper), that will give you a general idea -- why, one outraged oil company executive simpers that it's the equivalent of a 75 percent tax! Be sure to read the comments section, where you'll see folks screaming "windfall profits tax!" and other folks coming in and saying, "What the hell are you talking about? Do the math ... the 75 percent figure is horsepucky, and here's why ...." It is very informative.
Then follow some of the other links from the general search, and start reading blog posts from I think it was 2007 or thereabout by folks who present pros AND cons on whether or not it was actually a "windfall profits tax," and what actually went down. These are EXTREMELY informative and have lots of info that catfish would just as soon you not take into consideration.
YOU HAVE TO DO A LITTLE WORK ON YOUR OWN. As catfish knows and counts on your not knowing, negotiating oil leases for state-owned land in Alaska is unique in the U.S. It's a whole 'nother reality in state about one quarter the landmass of the continental U.S., with a geography and climate where the cost of living and infrastructure is by definition much higher than in the lower 48, is complex. He preys on people who will make knee-jerk reactions without doing a little research first.
I urge people to do their own due diligence on this. What Palin did with the oil companies in Alaska boils down to this: after replacing a corrupt old boy Republican state network, some cronies of which went to JAIL for taking money under the table from oil companies for letting them get the best deals in the leases, she told the oil companies: we're going to negotiate the leases on terms that benefit the State of Alaska, i.e. the people, and not the oil companies. Catfish will conveniently forget to tell you that the way Alaska has it worked out, monies raised by the State for lease of its land to oil companies pay out in dividends given DIRECTLY TO THE CITIZENS to spend or save as they please -- they don't get funnelled into more and bigger state government coffers. If you owned property that had oil, would you screw yourself out of leasing fees for oil companies that wanted access to it? According to catfish, if you opted not to, you'd be guilty of your own personal "windfall profits tax on oil companies."
FReepers and lurkers, I urge you to spend a couple of hours to read up on many different angles and takes on this issue. You will learn for yourself how disgustingly catfish misrepresents the truth.
A month ago, I asked you directly after listing the exact citation of how this was not defined as a “windfall profits tax”. You continued to evade and never did answer the question. Should I go back and resurrect the thread?