Tools.
Are you a dolt or something? A profits tax is by definition based on an individual company's profit. Maybe you ought to look the word "profit" up some time. Company A drills 100 barrels of oil from said piece of land. Company B drills 100 barrels of oil from another piece of land. Both pay the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY to Alaska, a price based on the market price of a oil, for the privelege.
But because Company A is more efficient or pays less overhead or simply has better management, it makes a bigger profit from those 100 barrels than Company B does. Yet COMPANY A PAYS THE SAME AMOUNT TO ALASKA AS COMPANY B.
Why? Because this "tax" has nothing to do with the company's profit! Sure, the higher the price of oil the bigger the profit an oil company stands to make, but it by no means dictates the profit a company WILL make. The level of profit a company will make is dependent on how it runs its operations. It's why one company dealing in the same commodity can make a bigger profit on a $5 deal than a different company. Catfish is full of sh*t.
Catfish, All, lurkers, everyone -- UNDERSTAND that the catfish boob is lying to himself and to us. He slings around buzzwords like "windfall profits tax" because he knows it scares people. BUT HE IS LYING.
He asks me to explain how this isn't a windfalls profit tax? I ask him (but he'll just continue with his chest-pounding and name calling) to explain exactly how a fee paid to the state government for the rights to extract a resource from state-owned property, a fee based NOT on a company's profit but based on the going price of the resource that's being extracted, is in any way shape or form a "profits" tax?
Catfish is a liar and a propagandist, pure and simple. Don't take my word for it -- do research on your own, and ask yourself WHY Catfish only urges you to read the one-sided article in the Seattle Times, instead of an article that takes the same side he dies and is much more DEVASTATING, on the Hot Air Blog (which I linked above in an earlier post). On that blog, in August of 2008, Ed Morrisey wrote a compelling and thoroughly discouraging piece claiming the same thing Catfish claims, and the first two thirds of the posts are from people who say things like, "Gosh, I loved Sarah, but I guess she's just another RINO. Cross her off my list!" and "Everytime somebody comes along who looks so much like a true conservative, it turns out to be an illusion. I'm so disappointed in Sarah."
Now wouldn't you think Catfish would WANT YOU TO READ THAT STUFF because it so heartily supports all his claims here?
Here's why Catfish never links to that Ed Morissey piece that very effectively throws the same "windfall profits tax" charge at Palin that Catfish does: Catfish is afraid you'll read beyond the first two thirds of the posts and read the last third of the posts, complete with links to places with other discussions to back it up, that show pretty clearly that calling it a "windfall profits tax" is an out-and-out lie and fabrication, pure and simple, and that some argue that even calling it a "tax" is a stretch, and that in all probability Ed Morrissey fell for, or was manipulated by, a liberal hit-piece in the Seattle Times designed to get conservatives to become (falsely) disillusioned with Palin.
Catfish is the tool. If he doesn't like the fact that Palin made it more expensive for oil companies to do biz in Alaska, that's one thing, and I can totally sympatize and even agree with it. I'd think he was perfectly honest and honorable.
The fact -- and it is a FACT -- that he lies instead. He cannot attack Palin effectively by being honest, so he has to lie. That says a LOT about both Palin and Catfish.