LOL, Democat Cites

[2minkey]

hah one more post avoiding the direct issue at hand.

lookie here... there's no question that a smaller, less intrusive federal government would be helpful to the economy. this is a given and you are just tugging your own imaginary chain, slaying imaginary bogies.

as to the alaska example, FOR or AGAINST that kind of relationship between industry, the state, and the federal gov? straight answer please.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

as to the alaska example, FOR or AGAINST that kind of relationship between industry, the state, and the federal gov? straight answer please.

So far you've been pretty vague about "the issue" you have bottled up in your mind, I suspect there many federal issues that are extraconstitutional and that I'm against.

Really, I'm surprised you'd even have to ask.

 

[2minkey]

what is vague about what is going on in alaska? how about a definitive answer?

alaska gets a shit ton of federal subsidies to support the oil industry. you can read about it in a million places on the web. is this bad? should these kinds of relationships exist in your desired constitutional republic?

 

[Gonz]

"when the money gets laundered by the feds" is exactly what is going on in the alaska example. do you approve of that?

From my understanding (as a non-resident of Alaska) is that the state gets, from the oil companies, a stipend for each of its citizens, which then comes as part of a tax refund.
Where is the federal gov't involved here?

 

[2minkey]

okay, good point. i misread something. for some reason i thought that the federal gov had a role in alaska's redistribution. well, it does, but not specific to the stipend you mention.

in any case, the amount of money alaska gets from the fedgov yearly is obscene. not going to get into all the palin bullshit, so here's 'just the facts.'

According to a Census Bureau report, which covers all federal expenditures or obligations for direct payments, grants, procurement awards, and salaries and wages, by federal agencies and programs, Alaska reaps a bigger payoff in federal spending than any other state, almost double the national average of $7,223. The second place state, Virginia, gets about $700 less per capita than Alaska. http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_expend/percapita.html

leading in federal pork. gee, if it gets the most pork, it must be the most socialist state in the nation huh?

alaska could not survive in a market economy without massive amounts of federal support undergirding the economy. it's a grand social experiment. fucking commies.

so back to within-state socialism... the state of alaska should tax oil companies and then redistribute monies to residents? nah that's not socialist at all. i just can't wait for you to try to tell me that it isn't socialism if a state government taxes and redistributes.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

You mean like: our state earns so much money from oil revenue that not only do we not have state income taxes, we refund every citizen cash back every year.

I'm trying to see the down side here.

I'm glad that got cleared up for you.

As far Alaska pork goes.....see here.

 

[2minkey]

it's still quite socialistic. sorry buddy.

 

[jimpeel]

hmmm hey how about "conservative" states like alaska where pretty much FUCKING EVERYONE is on the government dole?

You obviously have no idea about how the Permanent Fund system, and Permanent Fund Dividend system, works in Alaska. The state collects revenues from the oil companies http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Bermanoilfinal.pdf and then distributes a percentage of those revenues back to the people of the state. There is no "dole" as none of the funds come from taxes.

See HERE for how it works and what the annual amounts are.

 

[2minkey]

and then [re]distributes a percentage of those revenues back to the people of the state.

communism. pure and simple.

how do they get the revenues? who supports the infrastructure that enables that revenue? hey, it's uncle sugar. you got federally subsidized shit everywhere cause pork sure is yummy.

 

[jimpeel]

communism. pure and simple.

how do they get the revenues? who supports the infrastructure that enables that revenue? hey, it's uncle sugar. you got federally subsidized shit everywhere cause pork sure is yummy.

Communism = From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. The Permanent Fund fails the Commie test on that alone. Nothing is taken from the Bourgeoisie and presented to the proletariat. The oil companies pay into the Permanent Fund based on their profits and the state distributes those monies in equal blocks to every citizen of the state regardless of station. The only requirement to receive the funds is that you have been a resident of the state for one year. All of this was detailed in the two links I provided.

Because of this symbiotic relationship of the state to the oil companies the state does not need an INCOME TAX or SALES TAX against its citizenry and they are able to stay on budget with their spending.

California, on the other hand, has no such fund and taxes the oil companies in that state at outrageous rates. None of those monies are distributed to the citizenry and every dime goes into the general fund for profligate spending by the legislature. Read THIS PAGE to see how many taxes and fees are collected against the citizens of California.

California = bankrupt.

Alaska = prosperous.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

alaska could not survive in a market economy without massive amounts of federal support undergirding the economy. it's a grand social experiment. fucking commies.

Yeah, if only we had more enlightened people in Washington to save the people of Alaska from themselves. I'd say Alaska is doing pretty good despite all of the federal interventions. If Alaskans were left to their own hearty devices they would preform even better.

Same goes for the rest of the nation. It pucker time, enjoy your sanctuary city.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

California = bankrupt.

Alaska = prosperous.

I'm ready for the upcoming zombie apocalypse, it going to be a turkey-shoot.

 

[jimpeel]

Yeah, if only we had more enlightened people in Washington to save the people of Alaska from themselves. I'd say Alaska is doing pretty good despite all of the federal interventions. If Alaskans were left to their own hearty devices they would preform even better.

Same goes for the rest of the nation. It pucker time, enjoy your sanctuary city.

That is why they have such a strong secessionist movement in Alaska. They could do quite well on their own if they could shed D.C.

 

[2minkey]

They could do quite well on their own if they could shed D.C.

you guys are in la-la land. that's the biggest load of horseshit ever. alaska is dependent on the federal gov.

example...

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...-federal-lands-including-denali-national-park

Miller said if elected to the Senate, he will fight for state control of vast swaths of Alaska currently under federal ownership. Promoting resource development on those lands would help Alaska pay its own way and break its dependence on federal money, he said.

 

[Gonz]

The feds own 60% of Alaska

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf

 

[ResearchMonkey]

The feds own 60% of Alaska

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf

...and that in of itself is a fairly messed up situation. I can understand military bases, federal offices and facilities, I can even understand places like Mt Rushmore, Washington monument maybe a few other places of national interest, but the feds own waaaay to much state land that they have no business owning. Maybe China will take some of it off our hands for the debt we owe.

 

[2minkey]

well the land ownership is understandable given that it is vast tracts of arctic wasteland. and one can certainly appreciate the military spending there. but at the same time, a system always forms around its raw materials, and alaska is as fucked up as tammany hall. but that seems to be the trend around the country. just milking things. seems collectivism is always less challenging than individualism. no wonder china is chewing our ass.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

seems collectivism is always less challenging than individualism.

Yeah. For those doing the collecting, not so much for the individuals.

Sustainable cites, what winning idea. Everyone crammed into urban bloc' all connected by trains. Its going to be great.

 

[catocom]

well the land ownership is understandable given that it is vast tracts of arctic wasteland. and one can certainly appreciate the military spending there. but at the same time, a system always forms around its raw materials, and alaska is as fucked up as tammany hall. but that seems to be the trend around the country. just milking things. seems collectivism is always less challenging than individualism. no wonder china is chewing our ass.

what do you mean by "waste land"
Why is it waste land?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

As I mentioned to you before minx; you have what it takes to be a real player in the Democrat party for 2014. Nothing says 'jet-set playboy' more than being a federally elected Democrat playa', ...think about it buddy.