Once the initial defensiveness re: Palin dies down... - Page 11

And then winning them?

Them?

It strikes me that even the the most ardent supports of Palin don't know anything about her...

I know nothing about her. I picked her for VP several months ago because she had HAWT glasses. No one can find out anything on her. It is impossible. I can't even name her husband, her kids or tell you anything about them. I can't name the city of which she was mayor nor name any of her accomplishments as governor. I didn't even know she was governor. I just somehow lucked into that pick because I don't even follow politics at all.

I anxiously await her first interview. I don't care if she was the manager of a Denny's, but I would like to know her positions on more issues that drilling, Jesus and babies.

I don't know about that. It sounds personal to me.

From what I've heard there hasn't been a lot of that in her life yet.

1. She got elected.

2. ???

3. Profit.

Basically.

"She stuck it to the elite."

"She fought for our rights."

"She can field dress a moose."

An extremely sad reflection of America.

Let's be honest here:

The way Palin fought corruption was by helping to reveal questionable acts of the then governor in a manner that would increase her chances of winning a primary fight. It wasn't so much that she was bringing ethical reform as she was looking for the means to an end. She is a intense political animal that seems to have no moorings when it comes to the political sphere (every decision she has made has been out of popularity -- look at her campaign promises, her shifting tide behavior when she was mayor, etc.) One wonders if there is a human underneath the politician...

oh and Frank, welcome to my ignore list; thankfully, jimmac caught your lovely post before it was deleted.

My previous statement was not a personal attack.

It pointed out that the word "them" was used in my answer to continue on from Berger's reference to Palin's "elections".

If I had answered in the singular, then MY grammar would have been incorrect.

Looks to me like she is just another tax and spend politician.
I would say she really is against windfall profits taxing wouldn't you

http://www.observer.com/2008/politic...ding-socialist

Revealing about how close Palin's family is to her politics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

One example:
She held her baby Trig in her arms as she was driven around to view a prison in Alaska.

Charges were not filed against her or the officer driving.

http://www.infant-car-seats.com/stat...ws-Alaska.html


Another:
Her husband gets copies of her emails as governor.

What?!!??

Pretty much. The idea that it might be a good thing in someone's eyes and not caring where she stands ( just about winning ) is really sad.

Rice won't comment on Palin's foreign policy qualifications:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ffers-les.html

Oops.

I disagree. SHE has been very clear about what platitudes she stands for.

Who has?

Wow. Crazy typo land! That should have been "she."

...she returns to send off her son to Iraq. On September 11th. ABC has exclusive rights.


What an insidious (and pure Rove) move on McCain's part. Square a deal with one of the media conglomerates and go to town. Would make even Rudy jealous.

There were eyebrows raised about the Iraqi bound son (Joined on 9|11 last year AND deploying 9|11 this year?), but not much. This and the fly-on-the wall ABC coverage will have over Palin will have a huge effect on American women.

Staunch McCain supporters? Check.
Rednecks? Check.
Evangelicals? Check.
White American Housewives? Pending...

Time on Palin and Alaskanomics:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...eed-cnn-nation

Some points:
- Alaska is basically a member of OPEC
- 75% tax on oil... profits go to Alaskans
- essentially Alaska is taxing all Americans
- Palin raised the tax on oil and gave the proceeds to Alaskans, not all Americans

It's good that he's even being sent over there, but I'd be VERY surprised if he gets put at risk in actual front line combat duty, if anyone knows how to spin PR it's the Army.

(Jessica Lynch anyone?)

Heard or read somewhere that he will be on guard detail for the generals, which means pretty far away from any danger or real fighting, but the Republicans will likely claim in a week or two that he has "executive experience" due to his proximity to the decision makers.

Really!

That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. Isn't Alaskan Oil sold on the world market (like everybody else's?)
Do you understand what the implications are for selling a commodity on a world market?

As Govenor, wouldn't Palin be responsible for ensuring that the state's resources benefits her residents?

Source.

Seriously?





Alaska's FY2008 year started July 1, 2007 and ended June 30, 2008, as in past tense, as in already has happened.

Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil (from The Seattle Times dated August 10, 2008, e. g. well before the Palin VP nomination by McPalin (as in they're joined at the hip like conjoined twins )).


So now anyone can go to the EIA to get the hard data for crude oil prices and Alaska oil production for FY2008, but I'll save you all that trouble.

For Alaska's FY2008, the average world spot price of a barrel of oil was ~$89/bbl and Alaskan oil production averaged ~0.7 MBPD or ~256 MBPY.

Now from Bergermeister's link we have the following statement;


OK so far, as in can you follow the simple math shown here?

So using the above facts Alaska makes as much as 75% of their oil tax revenue on oil over and above the baseline of $25/bbl.

So $89/bbl - $25/bbl = $64/bbl net difference.

So $64/bbl * 256 MBPY = $16.4 BPY (for FY2008)

Alaska's oil tax revenue stream for FY2008 (according to the AOGA) will be $10.2 Billion, therefore we have;

$10.2 Billion / $16.4 Billion = 62.2% which while less than the stated 75% is a real world number and not that far off as an aggrigate average of all Alaskian oil production.

So what does a 62.2% oil tax mean?

It means that Alaska gets 62.2% of ($89/bbl - $25/bbl) = 0.622 * $64/bbl = $40/bbl in Alaskan state taxes on Alaska's domestic oil production.

It means that each of 610,768 Alaskans will each get a state of Alaska check in the mail/bank totaling $3,269 from the $40 Billion Alaska Permanent Fund.

I rest my fucking case.

QED

So you've proved that citizens in an oil-rich state get a lot of money when oil prices are high.

Didn't we know that already?

Perhaps you could now tackle what Palin, as Govenor of Alaska, did wrong in this scenario?
Is it not the job of the Govenor to work for the benefit of her constituents?

They get a lot of tax dollars, to the detriment of the other 49 states of the USA.

It just proves the me first ideology of McPalin and that Obama understands the real deal about windfall oil profits as exemplified by McPalin's first hand example.

It also suggests that opening up ANWR will not reduce the price of crude oil due to Alaska'a me first tax policy.

I'm moving to Alaska to get me some of that $3,269/year in "free" money.

Make that 610,769 Russians.

Exactly...

It certainly isn't Country-First for Palin... its Alaska first, even her first statements after her nomination reflect this -- something to the effect of helping people in Alaska... which is all fine and good IF she were running for Alaskan senator or rep, but she isn't.

Agreed.

Also you can look at the oil tax revenues from GOM states like TX, LA, MS, and AL where oil tax revenues as a percentage are much lower via an oil severance tax.

In LA it is 12.5% percent maximum (from LA state website, hasn't changed since 1974), in TX it's 4.6% maximum (from TX state website), and that's within their 3-mile territorial waters! In AL and MS it's minuscule.

State Energy Revenues Update (this doesn't list all oil tax revenues from each state, but illustrates the Alaska me first windfall oil profits tax situation).

Now let's get back to AK in FY2007 the EIA data shows world spot crude oil price averaged $57.40/bbl and as stated previously in FY2008 it was $89.13/bbl or an increase of 55.3%, now compare this increase with the increase in Alaska's oil tax revenues from $5.1418 Billion in FY2007 to $10.2388 Billion in FY2008, an increase of 99.1%, or almost double the spot crude oil price increase.

McMeme indeed.

This is the post that was in question.

This still doesn't make any sense. They are taxing OIL COMPANIES - and their windfall profits, not the residents of the other 49 states.

Unless someone says differently, I'm assuming Alaskan Oil is sold like everybody else's - on the world commodities market. It makes no sense to sell to the highest bidder and then lose royalties on the sale because the buyer MIGHT end up to be an American.

Oil isn't a renewable resource, so it's appropriate that the owners (Alaskan citizens) benefit from the sale. The point about ANWR drilling is that it will increase the overall amount of oil on the world market, and so reduce prices.

I still don't see the problem here. Rather than ship the windfall profits overseas to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, American citizens in Alaska are reaping a share of the resources they own.

Again, what is Palin specifically doing wrong here, and what alternative arrangement to you think should be undertaken to resolve this 'problem' you think exists?

So you believe that Palin should lower the royalties/taxes that are collected from oil companies?
Do you think this will really lower oil prices on the world market?

I'll just assume that you think government should tax corporations however they see fit, unless you care to state otherwise.

Works for me!

Where is a libertarian when you need one?

It will?



You do see how the above graph is going down?

By the time ANWR would kick in significantly, several years from now, where will existing Alaskan oil production be? Higher or lower? The above data suggests lower.

Homey don't play dat!

Meaning a highly likely zero sum game changes nothing relative to total world oil production or pricing or ever increasing world demand or consumption thereof.

They talk of energy independence...