[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because your state used the tax proceeds from those companies to make roads instead?

You wouldn't think so if you experienced the living nightmare that is Northern Virginia traffic.

But more to the point, as was stated above, these funds are not derived from taxes, which the oil companies also pay. This is a profit grab by government to redistribute to it's citizens. There is a difference.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Don't companies in Alaska pay taxes?

Yep, but there ain't many roads to build.
Heck, there aren't even any roads into or out of their capital.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep, the rail system was much better when it was nationalised.

I was always a bit sceptical about this-but hearing this from you (and don't read too much into this) I now believe it.

It's a bit like hearing from Besson3c that a particular poop joke wasn't funny. You know it must be true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

But more to the point, as was stated above, these funds are not derived from taxes, which the oil companies also pay. This is a profit grab by government to redistribute to it's citizens. There is a difference.

Ummm. A yearly profit grab is called "taxes".

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. A yearly profit grab is called "taxes".

But up above, Crash said it wasn't socialism because the funds were not derived from taxes. It's an endless loop.

At the end of the day, nationalisation (statitization?), even in part, of a natural resource to redistribute wealth to its citizens is at minimum a mild form of socialism. I can't see how one could honestly argue otherwise.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep, but there ain't many roads to build.
Heck, there aren't even any roads into or out of their capital.

They seemed more than willing to build the bridge to nowhere though.

But then, why tax the companies and then (if I understand this correctly) take more money from the companies to spread the wealth to the people?



And anyways.... a state/government owning land and national resources is in itself "socialism". Doesn't matter what happens "later" in the process. Land ownership should be private and those who own the land should be rewarded for the proceeds of their own land.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ah... so it's a matter of degrees. As long as the state does not have 100% control of distribution and profit, it's capitalism. Or is it there a ratio at which point the ratio of state/private control leads this system from capitalism to socialism?

Alaska doesn't control any of it. They have the resource, and allow businesses to take it (and pay them a percentage) and do with it what they please. They don't control it's distribution once the resource is gathered, don't set a price on what it's sold for, don't control where it goes and don't get all the profit.

I'd say we are far from any close "ratio" when comparing Alaska to Venuzuela.

I grew up in Virginia, where companies produced an awful lot of peanuts, poultry, ham and tobacco. Much of this was on land owned by the state and leased to producers. Why did I never get a check?

Ask your government representatives. Apparently they had other priorities in regards to what they did with all that money.

Should part of the profits of the products produced in my state have been sent directly to me, although I did nothing other than live there? Would that be profit sharing? Why don't Texans get checks?

Again, see above. Budget considerations are done by your state representatives and executive branch. Apparently they wanted to spend the money instead of giving it back equally to all citizens. That's their prerogative.

The bottom line is that McCain and Palin has criticized a system where you take money from people who earn and simply give that money to someone who has not earned it, and many times hasn't even paid any taxes. Wealth redistribution between citizens. When you have to change the subject to redistribution of STATE PROPERTY to all citizens equally in order to make some kind of analogy, you are flailing hopelessly.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When you have to change the subject to redistribution of STATE PROPERTY to all citizens equally in order to make some kind of analogy, you are flailing hopelessly.

The very idea of "State Property" is Socialism.

It's hilarious that you don't get that.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Ask your government representatives. Apparently they had other priorities in regards to what they did with all that money.

Up until recently, my state was controlled by free-enterprise capitalists. I don't think they would have gone in for this kind of socialism.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

The very idea of "State Property" is Socialism.

It's hilarious that you don't get that.

I don't think you'll find many capitalists who'll argue that a state can't own ANY property. All of it? Sure. All of a specific industry? Sure.

Again...apples to oranges. This is getting tedious.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Up until recently, my state was controlled by free-enterprise capitalists. I don't think they would have gone in for this kind of socialism.

How is having a government keep resources owned by it's residents capitalism?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think you'll find many capitalists who'll argue that a state can't own ANY property. All of it? Sure. All of a specific industry? Sure.

Again...apples to oranges. This is getting tedious.

You're arguments remind me of the time my 7 year old tried to explain the intricacies of The Force although he has never seen any of the films. It was complete nonsense yet somehow compelling and kind of cute.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is having a government keep resources owned by it's residents capitalism?

Ok, this one has me completely stumped. What exactly are you trying to say here?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

the difference between "profit sharing" an investment equally and simply taking money from one person and giving it to another. McCain/Palin never complained about the Government either NOT taxing it's resident or giving back excess taxes to EVERYONE. Never. Not in concept, not in reality. What they complained abut is directly taking from one man, and just giving it to another.

You'd be completely right, if you can explain how Alaskan's have invested in Alaska's oil supply. If each Alaskan has made some form of monetary investment in the communal ownership of Alaskan oil, then they're simply enjoying the benefits from the profit of selling that oil to the oil companies.

But, if each Alaskan gets to enjoy the benefits from the profit of selling that oil to the oil companies, without having invested anything into the ownership of that oil (ie: they have an entitlement to a communal ownership with zero investment), then that's socialism.

To think, all this time the Communists were simply profit sharing! And Obama's "share the wealth plan" ... clearly a form of profit sharing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, simply by virtue of living in the state, they are able to share the wealth of the state. Dude, that's socialism.

Not when its intention is to grow population, business, and capital. Ever wonder why the population is so small? You'd have to pay me to live there.

Now you're catching on. Your national defense systems are paid for through taxes. Taxation, as any capitalist will tell you, is a way of taking money from one person and redistributing it for the benefit of all. That is socialism.

Socialism is indeed taking money from one person and redistributing it for benefit, but not necessarily for the benefit of all. The difference is through what entity the resources are filtered. Generally, a government entity is not as accountable to you as the corporate interest. In this you and others are correct in claiming that the US entertains socialist ideology and perhaps Alaska is one such example, but I'd argue that this stewardship of resource is unique to Alaska in that they've not raided the permanent oil fund for unrelated projects. That money has remained available to Alaskans unlike the social security "lock-box".

Again, it's good to know that we don't have to hear what socialism isn't any more. As long as you can attach an (R) to it, socialism has no differentiation. There is no Marxist version of it. Oil funds 84% of the State government. In this Alaska is unique.

Now... if you want Big Oil in your back yard, allowing them to become filthy rich off your resources through cigar-chomping capitalism, there's the distinct possibility you'll get some kickbacks too. Be sure to support measures that encourage drilling and oil research in your State. Problem is, if you want the socialist utopia that is Alaska, you'll have to cozy up to capitalism in a manner few seem willing. I'm optimistic most of you get the difference, but simply don't want to.

In reality, there is a healthy mix of two realities while some here will only see all black or all white.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think you'll find many capitalists who'll argue that a state can't own ANY property. All of it? Sure. All of a specific industry? Sure.

Again...apples to oranges. This is getting tedious.

Any true capitalist should be against the state owning any land. Look at all the "socializations" that have been done in countries like China, Venezuela etc etc.

The state can own land until someone buys it (if no one owned it before). If a oil company wants to drill in a certain area they should buy the land.

That's how capitalism works. Socialism is when the state owns the resources and "rents" it to companies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Any true capitalist...

I think that most Americans who consider themselves capitalists don't have a problem with the state owning some property for legitimate reasons. They would be against any confiscation of private property to turn it into "state property" though, and would be against the state owning most or all the property. If you can find many mainstream folks who prefer capitalism over socialism who vehemently opposes state ownership of ANY property, let's hear their stories.

I think you are really stretching your point past that which can be taken seriously. You are trying to turn this into an entirely semantical argument since you can't find a time or place that McCain/Palin have supported redistributing more of an individual's own earnings to people who did not earn it, to do with as they please. That's what is up for debate here.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that most Americans who consider themselves capitalists don't have a problem with the state owning some property for legitimate reasons. They would be against any confiscation of private property to turn it into "state property" though, and would be against the state owning most or all the property. If you can find many mainstream folks who prefer capitalism over socialism who vehemently opposes state ownership of ANY property, let's hear their stories.

I think you are really stretching your point past that which can be taken seriously.

So most American "capitalists" support some degree of socialism.

So if parts of socialism is OK why the fear of socialism in the US?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok, this one has me completely stumped. What exactly are you trying to say here?

How is having the government take and spend excess revenues on property owned by it's citizens "capitalism"?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Socialism is indeed taking money from one person and redistributing it for benefit, but not necessarily for the benefit of all.

You, and the McCain campaign, have pretty much redefined socialism. Look it up. By the classical definition, what is going on in Alaska is closer to actual socialism than a progressive tax policy. Perhaps it is a general watering-down and morphing of socialism rather than a concious act on your or the McCain camp's part, but it is a redefinition none the less.

Your assertion that because the point of the fund is to spur growth so it is therefore not socialism is wrong. Whatever the ends, the means matter.

That being said, Alaska is unique and I don't think the oil fund represents some kind of secret leftist leanings on Palin's part, or is even evidence of hypocrisy. I'm in this battle solely because of the asinine arguments that the oil fund is not in any way, shape or form a socialist policy. That contention is just silly.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is having the government take and spend excess revenues on property owned by it's citizens "capitalism"?

It's not, yet that is just what is happening in Alaska. The money going to Alaskans would otherwise go to the oil companies and their shareholders. In fact the latest jumbo check was down to a Palin supported "windfall tax." Windfall tax is just double-speak for "we think you made too much money so we the government have the right to take some of it."

This seems so obvious to me I feel I must be missing something.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How is this an endorsement from a right wing source?

One thing's for sure, there's a lot of folks putting stock in "right-wing" sources. Guess it depends on whether or not one agrees with the source.

1. The Economist espouses conservative principles.

2. The Economist stated that it did not have a vote, but it would vote for Obama if it did.

3. Don't start using Stupendousman's "logic."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

So most American "capitalists" support some degree of socialism.

So if parts of socialism is OK why the fear of socialism in the US?

Again, you're getting into a semantical argument. If socialism supports love and cute puppies, and I say I support love and cute puppies, does that mean I support socialism?

It's very interesting that you simply can't stick to the debate point which McCain and Palin have railed against. I know it's because you (and the Associated Press) know it's an argument you aren't going to be able to win.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's not, yet that is just what is happening in Alaska. The money going to Alaskans would otherwise go to the oil companies and their shareholders.

It's "capitalism" to just GIVE a resource to a corporation for their use and profit? Not at all. Alaska is taking their resources, selling the right to use them to the highest bidder, allowing them to distribute and price them as the corporation sees fit (how the corporation profits), then takes the profit from that sale and distributes it EQUALLY amongst all that resource's shareholders. Pure capitalism.

This seems so obvious to me I feel I must be missing something.

I think you might be right.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, you're getting into a semantical argument. If socialism supports love and cute puppies, and I say I support love and cute puppies, does that mean I support socialism?

It's very interesting that you simply can't stick to the debate point which McCain and Palin have railed against. I know it's because you (and the Associated Press) know it's an argument you aren't going to be able to win.

This isn't about "love and cute puppies".

This is about a very clear cut Socialism principle vs Capitalist principle. And you seem to support the Socialist stance. But just can't get yourself to say that.

The state owning land which it then "rents" (property taxes) to companies that it then takes part of the profit from (taxes) and puts an extra tax on to hand out the company's money created by risk-taking and hardwork to the people that have taken no risk in building that capital is a concept in complete contradiction with capitalism. It's pure socialism. Not "love and cute puppies".

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's very interesting that you simply can't stick to the debate point which McCain and Palin have railed against. I know it's because you (and the Associated Press) know it's an argument you aren't going to be able to win.

Yes, why can't we all just stick to McCain's talking points?

[smacintush]

I just want to say that for many of us, the point is that we don't want massive federal control. What Alaska does with oil dollars does have the socialist taint, but I won't decry their right to do it or the morality of it because I support the right of states to do such things. If this type of scheme was applied at the federal level I would oppose it.

Just the same way I oppose nationalized health care, but I support the rights of states like Hawaii or whomever to implement public health care schemes.

Also like the way I support the right of states to either allow or ban abortions, but not the federal government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You, and the McCain campaign, have pretty much redefined socialism. Look it up. By the classical definition, what is going on in Alaska is closer to actual socialism than a progressive tax policy. Perhaps it is a general watering-down and morphing of socialism rather than a concious act on your or the McCain camp's part, but it is a redefinition none the less.

I can see why it is easier to compartmentalize arguments into this camp and that camp, but I don't see how it is more intellectually honest. The point you seem to be missing is again; Oil funds 84% of the State government of Alaska. In this Alaska is unique. If you want the socialist utopia that is Alaska, you'll have to cozy up to capitalism in a manner I'm sure many here would find reprehensible.

Your assertion that because the point of the fund is to spur growth so it is therefore not socialism is wrong. Whatever the ends, the means matter.

If the means are capitalist and the source; free-market capitalism, you'll have a hard time making the case that Alaska is an example of socialism.

That being said, Alaska is unique and I don't think the oil fund represents some kind of secret leftist leanings on Palin's part, or is even evidence of hypocrisy. I'm in this battle solely because of the asinine arguments that the oil fund is not in any way, shape or form a socialist policy. That contention is just silly.

What is silly is the fact that whenever the policy of a (D) is questioned for its inherent socialist premise, the accuser is told they do not know what socialism is. Then, in regards to the policy of an (R); any collection of money from one entity that might in tandem, benefit another entity is socialism. Even if that entity has been the poster-child of capitalist piggery in every other argument they've made to date. Again, If you want the socialist utopia that is Alaska, you'll have to cozy up to capitalism in a manner few seem willing. That's why Alaska is unique.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is silly is the fact that whenever the policy of a (D) is questioned for its inherent socialist premise, the accuser is told they do not know what socialism is.

Americans generally don't seem to know what socialism is. They've been taught (brainwashed?) for so long about the evils of anything that doesn't benefit the big corporations that fund their politicians that they no longer know what socialism is.

Because after all. The aim of socialism is to make life better for the working class. Not for the oligarchs like capitalism.

[SpaceMonkey]

Q. Why do Communists only drink herbal tea?

A. Because proper tea is theft.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

1. The Economist espouses conservative principles.

Such as?

2. The Economist stated that it did not have a vote, but it would vote for Obama if it did.

Of course, consistent with the conservative principles they espouse. After all, Obama is a conservative. The first one that has enjoyed such immense liberal support.

3. Don't start using Stupendousman's "logic."

You've not really demonstrated how your logic is more reasonable. Why shouldn't I use stupendousman's logic?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What, exactly, did each Alaskan *do* to deserve this money being handed to them?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They were residents of the state of Alaska.

Ok, then I'm a resident of Massachusetts, I say tax all the industries in Massachusetts and give me a fat check for doing nothing.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If socialism supports love and cute puppies, and I say I support love and cute puppies, does that mean I support socialism?

If socialism supports a progressive tax, and Obama supports a progressive tax, does that mean Obama supports socialism?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If socialism supports a progressive tax, and Obama supports a progressive tax, does that mean Obama supports socialism?

The second it doesn't directly benefit stupendousman: Yes, it's socialism.

If it were put forth by a Republican candidate, it wouldn't matter who benefitted: It'd still be capitalism.

As I pointed out above, it's neither.

This thread (lounge) is monstrously stupid. People are WAY to entrenched in choosing sides to even remotely care what the issues actually are.

[Dakar V]

I certainly have a hard time believing that most of the conservatives in this thread would be so adamant that this isn't socialism if this were coming from a (D) governor.

smacintush's position comes the closest to being even-handed in my mind (conservatively speaking).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, why can't we all just stick to McCain's talking points?

No, not their talking points, but rather the point they are debating.

Changing the subject doesn't make you the winner of a debate.

AGAIN, please show me where McCain or Palin have supported redistributing an individual's income to give directly to those who have not earned it, to spend as they wish. If you can find where they have, then you'll have a point to debate them on. If you can't then of course you have to change the subject to a semantic argument not based on the point at hand.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

AGAIN, please show me where McCain or Palin have supported redistributing an individual's income to give directly to those who have not earned it, to spend as they wish.

There you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The policy of Alaskans owning their state's oil began long before Palin ever got into office, so it's stupid to act like its suddenly her idea, and part of some make believe socialist philosophy of hers. It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution- it's shareholders profiting equally from what they have a share in.

Nobody is claiming that it was Palin's idea. But if she doesn't support socialism, then she should end the program. In particular, she should definitely send back the checks that she and her family received. If the Republican party doesn't support socialism, then it shouldn't have put Palin's name forward. The hypocrisy is astounding!*

This is definitely not shareholders profiting equally from what they have a share in. That is just spin. What investment have these shareholders made? How much has Trig Palin contributed?

* No, not really.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, not their talking points, but rather the point they are debating.

Changing the subject doesn't make you the winner of a debate.

AGAIN, please show me where McCain or Palin have supported redistributing an individual's income to give directly to those who have not earned it, to spend as they wish. If you can find where they have, then you'll have a point to debate them on. If you can't then of course you have to change the subject to a semantic argument not based on the point at hand.

The point McCain and Palin are debating is entirely semantic. Has anyone not heard Obama repeat his tax plan ad nauseum? I think we all get the basics: wealthy people and corporations will pay more, and folks earning less than $100K will pay less (people earning between $100K and $250K should see no change), and in some cases people who never pay taxes will get a credit. I don't think anyone disputes any of that. The problem is that people who earn less than $100K realize what's in it for them, so McCain is forced to try to scare them by calling this plan "socialist" in hopes that people will think twice about it.

[Chongo]

Is Green Bay WI socialist since it owns and operates the Packers?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

There you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

"like in Sweden where it doesn't pay to work more than 6 months a year"



idiot......

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not when its intention is to grow population, business, and capital. Ever wonder why the population is so small? You'd have to pay me to live there.

What?! It isn't socialism because the supposed goal is to grow population and business? I don't care what the stated goal of socialist policies is.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Americans generally don't seem to know what socialism is. They've been taught (brainwashed?) for so long about the evils of anything that doesn't benefit the big corporations that fund their politicians that they no longer know what socialism is.

Because after all. The aim of socialism is to make life better for the working class. Not for the oligarchs like capitalism.

I think part of the problem too is that people equate social democracy to socialism when the two are completely different.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So if the US institutes universal healthcare and gives the exact same benefit to everyone regardless of his or her income, it would not be socialized medicine? I don't get it.

It's only socialism if a Democrat proposes it, otherwise it's Strategic Health Defense & Security.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

AGAIN, please show me where McCain or Palin have supported redistributing an individual's income to give directly to those who have not earned it, to spend as they wish. If you can find where they have, then you'll have a point to debate them on. If you can't then of course you have to change the subject to a semantic argument not based on the point at hand.

The economic bailout comes to mind.

[ort888]

Or paying income tax.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is Green Bay WI socialist since it owns and operates the Packers?

No, because the city doesn't own and operate the team, Green Bay Packers, Inc. does. Individual shareholders bought (or inherited) their shares. It is in no way a goverment entity.

Nice try though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So I guess you think that because I own shares of Apple, that when I profit from those shares, it's socialism and "wealth redistribution". So now we can just label everything wealth distribution, and thus excuse away the real thing. Cute.

Ok, you missed the sarcasm of this issue. It's the RNC talking points that are being "cute" by defining any drop of "wealth redistribution" as "socialism." He said "spread the wealth around" he must be socialist! Answer this simple yes or no question: is spreading the oil companies' wealth around to all Alaskans "wealth redistribution" or not? (yes) Is it socialist? (no)

It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution- it's shareholders profiting equally from what they have a share in.

Jesus, and you're complaining about spin!
Alaskans have a share in the wealth of their oil, why? Because they decided to, because they all agree that they want it. If Americans all agree that they want to share a stake in the wealth provided by our economy, so that the government can levy a tax on those who draw profits from this resource (who without this resource would have nothing), how is that any different? If instead of investing those proceeds in maintaining the vulnerable population of Alaska, they decide it's necessary to invest in maintaining the vulnerable economy of the US, how is that any different?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

There you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

Well how about that?

[ort888]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...rap/index.html

Here you go. McCain is in favor of taking money from taxpayers to buy back houses from people too unsuccessful to be able afford their own homes. The government is absorbing the cost for poor people by using the taxes they collected from everyone (especially the the rich, who pay much higher tax rates and undoubtedly were smart and successful enough to not have their homes foreclosed).