[stupendousman]

Fact Check: Palin's Alaska spreads its wealth

I'm not sure what to say. Really, when you see this level of bias and purposeful spinning by a supposed "neutral" newswire, you've got to wonder if even they take themselves seriously:

Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin summon antidemocratic images of a communist state to attack Democrat Barack Obama's tax plan and his comment about spreading the wealth around. But in her home state, Palin embraces Alaska's own version of doing just that.
Palin and McCain seized on a comment Obama made to Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who asked about his tax plans.

Obama wants to raise taxes on families earning $250,000 to pay for cutting taxes for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," he told Wurzelbacher.

McCain said that sounds "a lot like socialism" to many Americans. Palin has derided the Illinois senator as "Barack the Wealth Spreader."

But in Alaska, Palin is the envy of governors nationwide for the annual checks the state doles out to nearly every resident, representing their share of the revenues from the state's oil riches. She boosted those checks this year by raising taxes on oil.

So, the Associated Press is trying to say that when the state of Alaska shares in it's revenues due to the sale of it's natural resources to people out of state, that that is the same as taking money earned by one person and just giving it to another?

Is that really the logic this AP analyst is trying to foist in this article?

I mean...does anyone actually edit this stuff before it gets sent out, or do they just let part-timers (whose full-time jobs are to spin for the Obama campaign) release stories on the wire before checking them for basic logical errors and irrational moral equivalency?

Someone wake me when the inmates stop running the asylum.

[stumblinmike]

stupe, your going to be sleeping for a very long time..Nighty night!

[ort888]

Yes. They tax the oil companies and spread the wealth to everyone. They are punishing the oil companies and their employees for being successful and giving the revenue to people who do nothing to earn it.

It's even more "socialist" then what Obama is proposing.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yes. They tax the oil companies and spread the wealth to everyone. They are punishing the oil companies and their employees for being successful and giving the revenue to people who do nothing to earn it.

It's even more "socialist" then what Obama is proposing.

Nail meet head. Nicely put.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yes. They tax the oil companies and spread the wealth to everyone. They are punishing the oil companies and their employees for being successful and giving the revenue to people who do nothing to earn it.

FUNNY! The oil companies are taking the oil and profiting from the natural resources which belong to the state of Alaska, and Alaska charges them for that use. Instead of spending the excess money, they simply give it back to ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY. The poor do not get more than the rich, the rich do not get back more than the poor. Alaska doesn't even have taxes.

What we have here is a business transaction that the people of Alaska benefit from, not a transfer of wealth from one PERSON to ANOTHER which is what everyone knows that McCain and Palin has been talking about.

You guys must have started drinking early tonight....

[OldManMac]

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid, not us. Another endorsement, from a right wing source; http://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=12516666

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

FUNNY! The oil companies are taking the oil and profiting from the natural resources which belong to the state of Alaska, and Alaska charges them for that use. Instead of spending the excess money, they simply give it back to ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY. The poor do not get more than the rich, the rich do not get back more than the poor. Alaska doesn't even have taxes.

What we have here is a business transaction that the people of Alaska benefit from, not a transfer of wealth from one PERSON to ANOTHER which is what everyone knows that McCain and Palin has been talking about.

You guys must have started drinking early tonight....

You just describe socialism.

[hyteckit]

You harvest the land, a natural resource. Grow crops, reap the rewards of the crops. Share it with all the citizens equally.

Socialism. You nailed it stupendousman. Alaska is a socialists state.

[besson3c]

So when companies rely on national resources located within that state, there is no such thing as Socialism?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You just describe socialism.

Again, some of you guys should join together and start a comedy troupe.

McCain/Palin complained about Obama's marxist wealth redistribution from one man to another.

Nowhere in the article in question does it show that Alaska engaged in wealth redistribution of that nature.

[hyteckit]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1569/socialism

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

[turtle777]

I'm going as a whore for Halloween!

Oh, wait, that wasn't me. Nevermind

-t

[hyteckit]

Sarah Palin has made Alaska a socialist state, where the natural resource is collectively own, and the profit derive from this natural resource is share with all of Alaskan citizens.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, some of you guys should join together and start a comedy troupe.

McCain/Palin complained about Obama's marxist wealth redistribution from one man to another.

Nowhere in the article in question does it show that Alaska engaged in wealth redistribution of that nature.

Sorry, but when you tax net oil company profits and use the proceeds to pay residents, you are distributing the net income of oil companies to people who did not earn it. It's not a hard to understand how that is a form a "wealth redistribution". Whether it's from a corporation to a person or a person to a person, it's still "wealth redistribution". This is especially true when you consider that oil companies already pay corporate income taxes, property taxes, and royalties.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

FUNNY! The oil companies are taking the oil and profiting from the natural resources which belong to the state of Alaska, and Alaska charges them for that use. Instead of spending the excess money, they simply give it back to ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY. The poor do not get more than the rich, the rich do not get back more than the poor. Alaska doesn't even have taxes.

What we have here is a business transaction that the people of Alaska benefit from, not a transfer of wealth from one PERSON to ANOTHER which is what everyone knows that McCain and Palin has been talking about.

You guys must have started drinking early tonight....

Absolutely. Alaskans should be compensated when oil companies profit from the use of their property. That isn't socialism.

Socialism is the communal ownership by all Alaskans of Alaska's natural resource. The *wealth* of Alaska's natural resource is being *shared* by all Alaskans.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nowhere in the article in question does it show that Alaska engaged in wealth redistribution of that nature.

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

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

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

They were residents of the state of Alaska. Without people there working and living in the communities, it's kind of hard to build the support system to get all that oil out of the ground. When the state needs money for infrastructure, they should be able to tax it's citizens. When it's accumulated money it does not need, it should send it back to it's citizens. The assumption here is that the government doesn't own the state, the people do.

Socialism is the communal ownership by all Alaskans of Alaska's natural resource. The *wealth* of Alaska's natural resource is being *shared* by all Alaskans.

Using the same flawed logic, you could argue that the communal benefit garnered by all Americans that our national defense system brings us which is "shared" by all Americans is socialism too.

...of course, this ALL ignores the fact that what McCain/Palin specifically discussed, and what most Americans don't agree with is taking money from one man and redistributing it to someone who did not earn it which is what Obama proposes. You can try to dishonestly try and change the subject to something else, but I'm pretty sure most people can see it for the transparent ruse it is.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They were residents of the state of Alaska. Without people there working and living in the communities, it's kind of hard to build the support system to get all that oil out of the ground. When the state needs money for infrastructure, they should be able to tax it's citizens. When it's accumulated money it does not need, it should send it back to it's citizens. The assumption here is that the government doesn't own the state, the people do.

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

Using the same flawed logic, you could argue that the communal benefit garnered by all Americans that our national defense system brings us which is "shared" by all Americans is socialism too.

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.

[OldManMac]

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.


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.

His "logic" is just different than anyone else's.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid, not us. Another endorsement, from a right wing source; http://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=12516666

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.

[stupendousman]

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.

See below....

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.

A capitalist will tell you that taxation is a way of taking money from ALL PEOPLE and using it for government infrastructure that is needed by all.

It's true that when you start telling some people they don't have to pay any tax, and then simply take taxes paid by others and give that money directly to them - which will not benefit "all" but simply acts to redistribute an individual's wealth, it is socialistic.

Is there really anyone arguing against taxes? No? Is that what the debate is about? No? Does McCain and Palin argue against fair taxation? No. The debate is about whether we should be taking more money from workers and redistributing it directly to other people who didn't earn it for them to use it as they please. Taking from one and just giving it to another does not "benefit all". The guys getting the money taken from them do not see any benefit.

APPLES TO ORANGES on a massive scale.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Without people there working and living in the communities, it's kind of hard to build the support system to get all that oil out of the ground.

Without people there working and living in the communities, it's kind of hard to build the support system... for Joe the plumber to get all those clogged toilets unclogged? For Bill Gates to get all those copies of Windows sold? For John Rockefeller to have markets that want to buy his oil, or for stupendousman to have willing audiences that pay him on his traveling comedy tour?

Face it, dude, there is not one successful person in modern society that would be that way without society all working together to provide necessary infrastructure. Joe needs a modern sewage system, Bill needs modern electricity and computers (repair, replacement, etc) and to a lesser extent the internet, John needs roads and rails and gas stations, and you Mr clown need venues and media. And all of them need markets. They all need a fat and happy community of customers who have disposable income and aren't trying to shiv each other over every crust of bread that fell off your table. All successful people (and corporations) owe a large part of their success to their customers and to society at large for providing them a productive framework (or as you called it "support system") for doing their thing. Or in other words, if the whole system came crashing down tomorrow, "society" disappeared and everyone had to fend for themselves, the current rich would be no more productive than anyone else. Sure, they'd survive longer, but they would no longer be producing wealth. Because just like you described, "it's kind of hard to [produce anything] without people there working and living in the communities." This isn't some strange anomaly that is unique to Alaska or oil drilling, it's a fundamental truth of all modern wealth. No man is an island, as they say.

Using the same flawed logic, you could argue that the communal benefit garnered by all Americans that our national defense system brings us which is "shared" by all Americans is socialism too.

This is exactly what we've all been thinking since the first time you tried to call Obama's plans "socialism." Flawed. Logic. I hope the irony's not lost on you.

[hyteckit]

Oil company goes to China. Tells China that they want to drill on China's land for oil. China says okay. Only if you pay us 30% royalty. Oil company agrees. China takes the royalty from the oil company and shares it with all its citizens, buy given each citizen $1000/yr because in China, they share in the wealth of their resources.





DId I say China? I meant Russia. Oops, I meant Alaska.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's true that when you start telling some people they don't have to pay any tax, and then simply take taxes paid by others and give that money directly to them - which will not benefit "all" but simply acts to redistribute an individual's wealth, it is socialistic.

Right, like where Joe 6-Pack in Alaska doesn't have to pay any Alaskan taxes, and then Sarah Palin simply takes taxes paid by others (being the oil companies) and gives that money directly to them (Joe 6-Pack) - which will not benefit "all" but simply acts to redistribute an individual's wealth (the oil company's wealth).

Still scratching your head over this one? Here's another exercise:

The debate is about whether we should be taking more money from workers and redistributing it directly to other people who didn't earn it for them to use it as they please. Taking from one and just giving it to another does not "benefit all". The guys getting the money taken from them do not see any benefit.

The debate is about whether we should be taking more money from workers (ie oil companies, who work hard for that oil money) and redistributing it directly to other people who didn't earn it (ie Alaskans who don't work at oil companies, like librul reporters in the librul media) for them to use it as they please. Taking from one and just giving it to another does not "benefit all." The oil companies getting the money taken from them do not see any benefit.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

FUNNY! The oil companies are taking the oil and profiting from the natural resources which belong to the state of Alaska, and Alaska charges them for that use. Instead of spending the excess money, they simply give it back to ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY. The poor do not get more than the rich, the rich do not get back more than the poor. Alaska doesn't even have taxes.

What we have here is a business transaction that the people of Alaska benefit from, not a transfer of wealth from one PERSON to ANOTHER which is what everyone knows that McCain and Palin has been talking about.

You guys must have started drinking early tonight....

In other words, it's a fully socialist policy.

I don't necessarily disagree with it, I'm just calling it like it is.

[Chuckit]

This is just weird. Like, stupendousman is denying that Alaska is socialist, but then he goes on to explain what's happening there with well-written, concise explanations of socialist philosophy.

I'm not trying to bag on stupendousman or anything. It's just odd to see him writing these things.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The spin is definitely in.

Alaska using its oil resources to benefit its citizens is not socialism in the sense Obama wants, because money is divided equally among all residents of Alaska, regardless of their income or any other criteria other than they are an Alaska resident. So an Alaskan making $200,000 gets the same check as someone making $2,000.

Are you lefties going to try and stretch it that Obama is proposing to take money from people making $200,000 and above give it equally to other people making $200,000 and above?

Also, we're talking about the difference between taking money from private citizens and giving it to other private citizens with income being the determining factor of who (supposedly) gets a handout and who pays for it , vs. money earned from a state resource used by large companies shared equally by everyone, regardless of income. Those aren't even close to comparable- but I see that intellectual honesty isn't exactly a hallmark of socialism cheerleaders.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is just weird. Like, stupendousman is denying that Alaska is socialist, but then he goes on to explain what's happening there with well-written, concise explanations of socialist philosophy.

I'm not trying to bag on stupendousman or anything. It's just odd to see him writing these things.

No, you should just bag on him. It's ok.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is just weird. Like, stupendousman is denying that Alaska is socialist, but then he goes on to explain what's happening there with well-written, concise explanations of socialist philosophy..

It's not a socialist philosophy- there's no judgment being made as to income of the recipients. It's merely profit-sharing, actually a thoroughly capitalist concept.

[hyteckit]

So welfare and entitlements are now profit-sharing and a capitalist concept.

Just because we are citizens, we are entitle to profit-sharing whether we work for it or not? Nice. Go welfare and entitlements, cause it's capitalism.

[ort888]

It's the government taking profit away from a corporation to share with it's citizens. It's close enough that Mrs. Palin shouldn't throwing stones in her glass house.

If she disagrees with Obama's tax plan, she should disagree with it without having to resort to scare tactics and over simplifications.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yes, because everyone receives welfare and it's not at all income based.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The spin is definitely in.

Alaska using its oil resources to benefit its citizens is not socialism in the sense Obama wants, because money is divided equally among all residents of Alaska, regardless of their income or any other criteria other than they are an Alaska resident. So an Alaskan making $200,000 gets the same check as someone making $2,000.

"Wealth" "redistribution." Period. It doesn't matter how you spin it, you'll never spin it that far.

Also, we're talking about the difference between taking money from private citizens and giving it to other private citizens with income being the determining factor of who (supposedly) gets a handout and who pays for it , vs. money earned from a state resource used by large companies shared equally by everyone, regardless of income. Those aren't even close to comparable- but I see that intellectual honesty isn't exactly a hallmark of socialism cheerleaders.

In these days of deficit spending, taxes are completely divorced from spending. It doesn't matter how you spend the tax money, if it was being passed out in the street as cash or shipped over to Iraq and buried in the desert. As long as the rich pay more and the poor pay none, you'd still be calling it "socialism" and you know it. To make it easier for you to see, if Obama raised the taxes by enough to generate an extra $600 for everyone and handed it out evenly, it would have the same net effect: more from the rich to the poor, you'd just be taking >600 extra from the rich to give them 600 back.

And society is a "state resource," even more so than oil is. The foundations laid by all members of society, the "people there working and living in the communities," constitute a resource that all successful people farm for revenue. The fact that the rich provide more value than they consume (as do the oil companies) does not change the fact that they are exploiting a state resource (the market, among others) that simply would not exist without the state (society in general). No wealth generator is qualitatively different from oil companies in that respect.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's the government taking profit away from a corporation to share with it's citizens. It's close enough that Mrs. Palin shouldn't throwing stones in her glass house.

In Alaska, the citizens- not just the state- own the oil resources. The same as you own a share of a company or resource you invest in. Alaskan citizens share in the profits from that oil just as they own it-equally- with no discrimination based on income.

In the rest of the country, the citizens don't automagically own anyone's plumbing business, nor do they own the fruits of the labor of private citizens with a $250,000 income. Taxes on someone's $250,000 income is not shared equally with everyone else, nor has that ever been Obama's stated intention.

The whole comparison is complete Apples to Oranges- but hey, it's a couple days from a major election so we should all expect as much.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Wealth" "redistribution." Period. It doesn't matter how you spin it, you'll never spin it that far.

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.

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.

This is merely the kind of stupid crap that gets dredged up, lied about, and spun, days before an election.

[hyteckit]

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.

This is merely the kind of stupid crap that gets dredged up, lied about, and spun, days before an election.

And progressive tax policies have existed in the US for a long time. It's not like Obama made it up.

Obama supports progressive tax policies.

Palin supports and embraces socialism.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Since some of you (and the AP) are clearly incapable of actually looking anything up:

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a constitutionally established fund, managed by a semi-independent corporation, established by Alaska in 1976. Shortly after the oil from Alaska’s North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Alaska to be an investment for at least 25% of proceeds from some minerals [such as oil and gas] sale or royalties.

The Fund does not include either property taxes on oil company property nor income tax from oil corporations, so the minimum 25% deposit is closer to 11% if those sources were also considered. The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans. Many citizens also believed that the legislature too quickly and too inefficiently spent the $900 million bonus the state got in 1969 after leasing out the oil fields. This belief spurred a desire to put some oil revenues out of direct political control.

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation manages the assets of both the Permanent Fund and other state investments, but spending Fund income is up to the Legislature. The Corporation is to manage for maximum prudent return, and not--as some Alaskans at first wanted--as a development bank for in-state projects. The Fund grew from an initial investment of $734,000 in 1977 to the current sum of approximately forty billion dollars as of July 13, 2007. Some growth was due to good management, some to inflationary re-investment, and some via legislative decisions to deposit extra income during boom years. Each year, the fund's realized earnings are split between inflation-proofing, operating expenses, and the annual Permanent Fund Dividend.

The Permanent Fund Dividend is a program benefiting Alaskans without a felony conviction who have resided in the state for at least one calendar year preceding the date applied for a dividend and intend to remain an Alaska resident indefinitely at the time applied for a dividend. The amount of each payment is based upon a five-year average of the Permanent Fund's performance and varies widely depending on the stock market and many other factors.

Though the payouts have varied from the smallest ($331.29 per person in 1984) and the largest ($3,269.00 per person in 2008 when a one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate was added to the dividend amount[1]), they usually vary between $600 and $1,500 ($900 and $1,800 when adjusted for 2005 dollars).

To spin this as socialism, or anything that Palin had anything to do with because she believes in socialism, is just the most blatant spin you lefties have come up with yet!

[Sayf-Allah]

This thread rules.

Just wanted to say that.

:missing popcorn smiley:

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The spin is definitely in.

Alaska using its oil resources to benefit its citizens is not socialism in the sense Obama wants, because money is divided equally among all residents of Alaska, regardless of their income or any other criteria other than they are an Alaska resident. So an Alaskan making $200,000 gets the same check as someone making $2,000.

Are you lefties going to try and stretch it that Obama is proposing to take money from people making $200,000 and above give it equally to other people making $200,000 and above?

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.

[stupendousman]

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.

Here's where it's "apples to oranges".

Most Americans already get healthcare or can get it if they choose. In order to give it to EVERYONE, you have to TAKE MONEY from those who already have the resource. You aren't simply DISTRIBUTING an earned resource equally. You are redistributing it from those who already have, to those who have not.

Where people keep missing (purposely, because it doesn't allow for their spin) is as Crash said, 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.

Profit Sharing = Capitalism.
Taxing one person and just giving that money to someone else for them to spend how they choose = Socialism

You can call what they are doing in Alaska by whatever term you like, but that's not going to change the fact that the thing in question is not what McCain and Palin have criticized, and you guys know it.

Once you guys stop, sit down. The dizziness will stop after a few moments and you'll be able to move on without incident.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's where it's "apples to oranges".

Most Americans already get healthcare or can get it if they choose. In order to give it to EVERYONE, you have to TAKE MONEY from those who already have the resource. You aren't simply DISTRIBUTING an earned resource equally. You are redistributing it from those who already have, to those who have not.

Ok, I think I get it now. Because it's a natural resource, it belongs to all citizens equally and therefore they all derive a monetary benefit. So Hugo Chavezs's nationalization of Venezuela's oil companies was capitalism NOT socialism. Thanks for clearing that up. I think we all owe Sean Penn an apology.

[Doofy]

I'm with Crash on this one. It's dividends, not socialism.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok, I think I get it now. Because it's a natural resource, it belongs to all citizens equally and therefore they all derive a monetary benefit. So Hugo Chavezs's nationalization of Venezuela's oil companies was capitalism NOT socialism.

Alaska doesn't control the distribution, or get all the profit. They simply charge the companies that do and pass the excess revenues on to ALL of their citizens equally, in a way where one citizen does not have to give up what he already has, so that another citizen can get more (wealth redistribution amongst citizens). Again, apples to oranges.

I didn't expect this kind of sophistry from the AP, so I was disappointed. You guys on the other hand never disappoint because I never underestimate the lengths you'll go to in order to stretch a bad analogy.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm with Crash on this one. It's dividends, not socialism.

The way you guys are arguing, those actually sound like pretty much the same thing.

There's a fundamental difference between whether it's a corporation handing them out, or the state. You actually have to take personal initiative to become a corporate shareholder and aren't just handed out dividends for merely existing.

Of course, actual socialism would be supposed to take into consideration the *needs* of the individuals receiving the benefits, and adjust them accordingly.

So in reality, it's just short-sighted populism designed to make voters happy and close enough to real socialist redistribution tactics to be heavily laced with irony.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The fundamental difference is whether it's a corporation handing them out, or the state.

Yep.

Though I'm actually not against the basics of life (including oil) being nationalised, providing a "foundation layer", as long as they're run efficiently. It's when the monkeys try to take more money off me than the bloke down the road that I get pissy.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Alaska doesn't control the distribution, or get all the profit. They simply charge the companies that do and pass the excess revenues on to ALL of their citizens equally, in a way where one citizen does not have to give up what he already has, so that another citizen can get more (wealth redistribution amongst citizens). Again, apples to oranges.

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?

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? 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?

Someone brought up the comparison of owning shares in a company and claimed it was the proper comparison. That is nonsense. When I buy shares, I share in the risk in order to reap the benefits. This is not the case in Alaska.

It's not the same as a system of progressive taxation either. But to claim it is in no way a socialistic situation is either wilfully ignorant or simply dishonest.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep.

Though I'm actually not against the basics of life (including oil) being nationalised, providing a "foundation layer", as long as they're run efficiently. It's when the monkeys try to take more money off me than the bloke down the road that I get pissy.

What about National Rail? All I here from everyone is that privatization destroyed it and that things are in an awful state over here. Was it better before or is it just a simple matter of moaning about the status quo? The rail systems on the continent (at least as far as I have been exposed to them) do seem to be in much better shape.

I'm not baiting and realise I'm derailing (unintentional pun) the thread. I'm just curious about your thoughts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

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?

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

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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

Don't companies in Alaska pay taxes?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What about National Rail? All I here from everyone is that privatization destroyed it and that things are in an awful state over here. Was it better before or is it just a simple matter of moaning about the status quo? The rail systems on the continent (at least as far as I have been exposed to them) do seem to be in much better shape.

Yep, the rail system was much better when it was nationalised. Of course, you couldn't get a decent bacon buttie off the station cafes, but that's not what they were there for.

Trying to get a bunch of different companies to synchronise on the same resources (in this case, track and stations) seems a little stupid to me. Sometimes what a customer needs is not choice, but reliability - a wealth of options can be problematic in certain areas (see the telecoms directory enquiries sell-off, for example).