[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You forgot to mention she runs a Socialist State, one where every resident get a check from taxes you and I pay for.
[/quote]LOL. You keep going, Pitt. You just keep diggin’ yourself a deeper hole. You’re more clueless than I thought.
For those who care, google Alaska Permanent Fund. Rest assured, your Lower 48 taxes are not going into Alaska’s citizens’ pockets.
[/quote]
The lower 48 are paying for their Socialim
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You forgot to mention she runs a Socialist State, one where every resident get a check from taxes you and I pay for.
[/quote]LOL. You keep going, Pitt. You just keep diggin’ yourself a deeper hole. You’re more clueless than I thought.
For those who care, google Alaska Permanent Fund. Rest assured, your Lower 48 taxes are not going into Alaska’s citizens’ pockets.
[/quote]
The lower 48 are paying for their Socialim[/quote]
So then… you should like her… right?
My guess is that Pittbulll feels that all money, or the lion’s share of the money, earned from Alaskan oil should go to the lower 48 states, and that not being the case comprises them “paying” for Alaska.
Ideally Pittbulll will make the matter clear, as that is only a best guess.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My guess is that Pittbulll feels that all money, or the lion’s share of the money, earned from Alaskan oil should go to the lower 48 states, and that not being the case comprises them “paying” for Alaska.
Ideally Pittbulll will make the matter clear, as that is only a best guess.[/quote]
Even if it is true, it should be as much a reason for liberals to like alaska/palin as for conservatives to dislike it. Pitbull is presenting it as if the liberal policy should be repulsive. In socialism someone always pays for someone else. If you like the social programs, you should like that your money is “helping out” alaska.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pitt, for you to be a-bouncin’ around on a thread about alleged “f***ing retards” is…priceless.[/quote]
It is my pleasure to amuse and educate, some people can not speak about the subject at hand so the make statements such as yours that would cover any conversation, and I believe I pointed that out on my last reply to your post that you need to stay focused and discuss Palin and other Republican Types that are Fâ??king Idiots
If you start a thread about the amazing Pitt:) I will discuss me 
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My guess is that Pittbulll feels that all money, or the lion’s share of the money, earned from Alaskan oil should go to the lower 48 states, and that not being the case comprises them “paying” for Alaska.
Ideally Pittbulll will make the matter clear, as that is only a best guess.[/quote]
Even if it is true, it should be as much a reason for liberals to like alaska/palin as for conservatives to dislike it. Pitbull is presenting it as if the liberal policy should be repulsive. In socialism someone always pays for someone else. If you like the social programs, you should like that your money is “helping out” alaska.[/quote]
No, their GREED is having them keep monies from their oil leases for themselves when the wealth should be spread to those in less “fortunate” states.
Detestable.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My guess is that Pittbulll feels that all money, or the lion’s share of the money, earned from Alaskan oil should go to the lower 48 states, and that not being the case comprises them “paying” for Alaska.
Ideally Pittbulll will make the matter clear, as that is only a best guess.[/quote]
Even if it is true, it should be as much a reason for liberals to like alaska/palin as for conservatives to dislike it. Pitbull is presenting it as if the liberal policy should be repulsive. In socialism someone always pays for someone else. If you like the social programs, you should like that your money is “helping out” alaska.[/quote]
No, their GREED is having them keep monies from their oil leases for themselves – and profits earned from investments purchased from that lease money – when the wealth should be spread to those in less “fortunate” states.
Detestable.[/quote]
I’m agreeing on the condition that my pocke… I mean, my Tennessean brothers receive their fair share.
The investments were purchased from oil lease (and related) income.
I didn’t want to write several paragraphs on it and distilled it down to the ultimate primary source.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Am I the only one that sees a constant reliance on a teleprompter for word for word speeches as entirely different from a few words scribbled on your palm? I honestly donâ??t see the hypocrisy. If those words had been written on a note card would you think differently about it? Is it just because it was on her palm that makes it magically hypocritical? [/quote]
No you definetly aren’t the only one. Writing a few key notes on your hand - “energy, tax and lift American Spirits” is completely different than reading everything you say off a tv screen.
It would however be the same if Palin’s entire speach would have been - “energy, tax and lift American Spirits”, THE END…Then you would be able to call her a hypocrite, problem is, she had a whole lot more to say than a few words.
People really need to find logic.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The investments were purchased from oil lease (and related) income.
I didn’t want to write several paragraphs on it and distilled it down to the ultimate primary source.[/quote]
True but it’s going to be a stretch that Pitt will never pull off to suggest that taxes and the interest that they earn from oil pumped from Alaska soil legitimately belongs in the pocket of a resident of Arizona.[/quote]
Why on Earth would that be a stretch?
Pitt, do you have a problem with, for example, the idea that residents of other states, if less “fortunate” than I, have a legitimate demand on the money I earned here in Florida? That my tax money should be used to help them?
As I see it, the Alaska thing is just the usual liberal accounting method. Monies earned by an entity, or at least the lion’s share of them, are really the property of the government or “the people.” Taking less of this money constitutes GIVING tax money to them.
The government of the State of Alaska pays no Federal income tax on these revenues.
Therefore, this is a huge amount of tax money being “given” to the State of Alaska.
Same as how Reagan and Bush gave tax money to the rich.
You or I would say the rich were still taxed – in fact paid a great deal of taxes – but not so under liberal accounting. Rather, some other figure is in mind – whether Clinton’s 39%, Carter’s 70%, or some other value – and if less is required to be paid then this, then the difference counts as money “given” to those who paid less than that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You forgot to mention she runs a Socialist State, one where every resident get a check from taxes you and I pay for.
[/quote]LOL. You keep going, Pitt. You just keep diggin’ yourself a deeper hole. You’re more clueless than I thought.
For those who care, google Alaska Permanent Fund. Rest assured, your Lower 48 taxes are not going into Alaska’s citizens’ pockets.
[/quote]
The lower 48 are paying for their Socialim[/quote]
So then… you should like her… right?[/quote]
I thought you were the one that did not want me to lump all you SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES together, now you think I am a socialist. This is where I think you all are jack offs No offense meant
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The investments were purchased from oil lease (and related) income.
I didn’t want to write several paragraphs on it and distilled it down to the ultimate primary source.[/quote]
True but it’s going to be a stretch that Pitt will never pull off to suggest that taxes and the interest that they earn from oil pumped from Alaska soil legitimately belongs in the pocket of a resident of Arizona.
By that same notion Wyoming and Montana should be disbursing income from taxes it levies on coal to residents of Rhode Island and South Carolina and Puerto Rico and Guam.
I should then expect any revenue the State of Arizona earns from the Colorado River Storage Project to be shared with Montana residents. If not, I guess AZ is practicing “socialism”.
What Sir Pitt the Socialist fails to remember is that we are a union of states not a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [cough].[/quote]
I can not state it for a fact but no one to my knowledge no one makes money on the Colorado River. We have (CAP) Central Arizona Project, but AZ takes their allotment and that is all. Correct me if I am wrong
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The investments were purchased from oil lease (and related) income.
I didn’t want to write several paragraphs on it and distilled it down to the ultimate primary source.[/quote]
True but it’s going to be a stretch that Pitt will never pull off to suggest that taxes and the interest that they earn from oil pumped from Alaska soil legitimately belongs in the pocket of a resident of Arizona.[/quote]
Why on Earth would that be a stretch?
Pitt, do you have a problem with, for example, the idea that residents of other states, if less “fortunate” than I, have a legitimate demand on the money I earned here in Florida? That my tax money should be used to help them?
As I see it, the Alaska thing is just the usual liberal accounting method. Monies earned by an entity, or at least the lion’s share of them, are really the property of the government or “the people.” Taking less of this money constitutes GIVING tax money to them.
The State of Alaska pays no Federal income tax.
Therefore, this is a huge amount of tax money being “given” to the State of Alaska.
Same as how Reagan and Bush gave tax money to the rich.
You or I would say the rich were still taxed – in fact paid a great deal of taxes – but not so under liberal accounting. Rather, some other figure is in mind – whether Clinton’s 39% or some other value – and if less is paid then this, then the difference counts as money “given” to those who paid less than that.[/quote]
I am not quite sure I understand your point, but letâ??s get back to Colorado River Water, letâ??s say Colorado says that water originated in Colorado, so it is ours and we are going to tax you. That is the situation in Alaska, nothing fuzzy about it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My guess is that Pittbulll feels that all money, or the lion’s share of the money, earned from Alaskan oil should go to the lower 48 states, and that not being the case comprises them “paying” for Alaska.
Ideally Pittbulll will make the matter clear, as that is only a best guess.[/quote]
I don’t know what pit based his claim on, and I’m not taking sides on this, just throwing this out:
In 2005 Alaska was ranked third in the nation for federal spending per dollar of federal taxes (Tax Foundation) – $1.84 (ie for every dollar they paid in federal taxes they received $1.84 back from the feds).
Also:
“In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending.” (http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/individual-taxes/4071005-1.html).
As I said, I’m not taking sides in this argument, and I recognize that alaskan oil revenues belong to alaskans – I’m just pointing out that alaska took in more in federal dollars than they paid out in federal taxes 2004 and 2005 (I didn’t check for other years).
Whether one wishes to use this to make the claim that alaskans are being supported by the rest of the country is up to them, I am not making that claim (yes, I’m being redundant about this, given the propensity of some – not you
Bill – to infer what I neither claim nor imply).
It seems to me that that could not be counted as “their socialism” but rather Federal socialism, in a non-precise sense.
You could call it their receipt of Federal socialism, again in a non-precise sense, but the claim was that we are paying for “their socialism.”
While perhaps something else was intended, I would have to intepret that as referring to, while not actual government ownership of the means of production, government receipt of lease money on some important means of production, and distribution of these proceeds (with investment involved) to the people.
Or perhaps the government ownership of these investments, rather than receipt of the royalties, with resulting distribution to the people is “their socialism.”
If not these, then what is “their socialism” ?