Palin Still Doesn’t See How “Socialist” Alaska Really Is?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Energy, Oil, Palin, Republicans, Video

Found this on Political Wire and it’s typical of the nonsense we heard from her during the campaign…

Palin: We are the only state with a negative tax rate where we don’t have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.

Hannity: And it went up higher since you’ve been the governor and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.

Palin: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.

Haha, yeah, imagine that! The people collectively owning the land and spreading the wealth derived from it between everybody.

Why, that’s just good ole, Alaskan capitalism!

And the video…



I swear…it’s like a comedy routine.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 and is filed under Energy, Oil, Palin, Republicans, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

46 Responses to “Palin Still Doesn’t See How “Socialist” Alaska Really Is?”

  1. Jon Says:

    She single handily personifies the GOP’s rush to ignorance that has been in the works for quite some time. Sad to see.

  2. michael reynolds Says:

    Republicans don’t know or care what socialism is. It’s just another convenient scare word used to supply the base with its daily allowance of fear and rage.

    If Republicans were anti-socialist they’d oppose Social Security and Medicare. The Libertarians do, because the Libertarians do know what socialism is and they have actual convictions. Which is why they regularly get >1% of the vote. I invite Republicans to leap aboard that bandwagon.

  3. Shawn Says:

    This is great, thanks for posting it. It really is incredible how the intellectual conservative wing of the GOP has collapsed.

  4. the Word Says:

    Not to mention the fact that Alaska gets way more back (as do most Red states) than they kick in in taxes. Were it not for “socialism” many of the red states would not have electricity or roads. If they paid their fair share in Alaska and the check spigot got cut off, I wonder what Palin’s approval rating would be.

  5. popurls.com // popular today Says:

    popurls.com // popular today…

    story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

  6. Justin Gardner Says:

    the Word, exactly.

    Actually, Alaska gets more per person in earmarks than any other state in the US. And when she was mayor of Wasilla, she secured over $27M in earmarks over a 4 year period for a town of less than 10,000 people. That works out to around $800 per person.

    I mean, she thinks she can get away with this stuff because she’s on Fox News, but once she gets put in front of a real interviewer, watch out.

  7. greg prull Says:

    “spreading the wealth around”?! like Obama suggested?

    OMG! – has Joe the Plumber heard about this?….she could be in trouble..

  8. George Says:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Donklephant, the Alaskan government does not own the oil companies operating in Alaska. That would be socialism.

    Taxing oil companies for using Alaskan resources and land, and giving some of that revenue back to the taxpayers instead of wasting it on, say, research grants for polar bear sexual preference studies, can in no way be deemed to be socialism. Unless you believe the stimulus money Obama sent to taxpayers to be an act of socialism, or the Bush stimulus checks of a few years back to be the same.

    You also seemed to have entirely missed the meaning of “spreading the wealth”. Obama wanted to spread wealth from wealthy people to less wealthy people, in other words, transferring wealth from one segment of the population to another, which is a socialist trait – manufacturing income equality through taxation.

    What Alaska is doing is spreading the wealth of the government generated by the land of the people. The wealth is transferred from the land to the government to the people, not between people.

    Try to at least know a little bit about a subject before attacking others as ignorant on it. The elephant in the room here is that you have no clue what you’re talking about because you’re too busy hating on Palin.

  9. Jackie Jones Says:

    Man I really wish Palin would go crawl back under that rock from which she emerged!

  10. Alistair Says:

    Poor Sarah even Senate GOPers are irritated with her!

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-beginning-to-irritate-some-senate-gopers-2009-06-08.html

  11. George Says:

    Maybe Donklephant should have checked Wikipedia before making an ass out of himself, pun intended:

    “In all modern states, some land is held by central or local governments. This is called public land… In the United States governmental entities including cities, counties, states, and the federal government all manage land which are referred to as either public lands or the public domain.
    The majority of public lands in the United States are held in trust for the American people by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior, or the United States Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture.”

    Collectively owning land is a socialist trait? Sorry, no.

  12. Chris Says:

    George, where did he say that Alaska owned the oil companies? I just read over everything he wrote and I don’t see that. Besides the fact that you completely contradicted yourself.

  13. curious, george Says:

    “Taxing oil companies…. and giving some of that revenue back to the taxpayers”

    George my boy, that’s pretty much the definition of socialism right there.

  14. gerryf Says:

    Chris, you misread him. He said that Alaska (the people) own the resources and the oil companies who benefit/profit from the resources pay the people of Alaska back.

    That said, George, you seem to have a problem with spreading wealth from wealthy people to less wealthy people, in other words, transferring wealth from one segment of the population to another.

    Where has your outrage been at the massive transfer of wealth from less wealthy people to wealthy people, which has been going on for 30 years?

  15. George Says:

    “George my boy, that’s pretty much the definition of socialism right there.”

    You do know that every company in the United States pays taxes, right? Is it your impression that taxation is socialist? If that’s the case, then most countries in the world are socialist. You may want to rethink that a bit.

    “That said, George, you seem to have a problem with spreading wealth from wealthy people to less wealthy people, in other words, transferring wealth from one segment of the population to another.”

    Can you point out where I have said anything of the kind? I’m just saying that that’s what a telling sign of socialism actually is, that’s partly why it’s called SOCIAL-ism.

    I have no problems with the wealthy paying higher taxes to fund government functions that will help the needy, aside from when Certain People want to do this at a rate where it will not only hurt the economy, but will also end up hurting those very same people at the bottom who rely on having a job in the first place.

    “Where has your outrage been at the massive transfer of wealth from less wealthy people to wealthy people, which has been going on for 30 years?”

    Transfer of wealth? The government doesn’t hand out incomes. You must mean that taxation needs to be more progressive, in which I’d probably agree with you.

  16. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Gerry, wait, when did the government take money (via taxes, etc.) from the poor and give it to the wealthy? Or are you talking about the wealthy hiring and paying the poor a wage in return for a service provided, such as working in a factory? Hope not; that sounds a lot like “blood of the exploited working class” silliness.

  17. Joe Says:

    She’s not intelligent at all.

  18. JohnnyS Says:

    FWIW, encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.”, e.g. collective ownership of land.

  19. K Says:

    What a moronic article. Socialism is when gov’t takes someone else’s stuff and distributes it as they please i.e. Obama and the UAW/Obama and wallstreet etc. One could also call it pay for play/corruption since the UAW/Wallstreet gave tons of money to BO. You might want to thank BO for the privilege of paying taxes (if you do) so he can buy more UAWt votes.

    Socialism is not when you have natural resources and return the profits to the people who legally own them.

  20. Dave Taylor Says:

    It seems that everyone has a different definition of socialism although you all seem to think of it as some kind of evil. I promise you socialism is done for the benefit of the majority and the idea that it is evil is spread by the elite as they are the only people with something to lose and you suckers buy it hook, line and sinker. Having oil companies pay your taxes seems fair game in return for their huge profits the only difference is the money isn’t going into politicians pockets its going into everyone’s pockets and at a fairer exchange – how can that be a bad thing no matter by what name you give it a rose would smell as sweet.

  21. kranky kritter Says:

    Parse the definitions and make up your own ones all you want. When everyone is done with wikipedia and all the special pleading, it’s still extraordinarily difficult to get around this pretty obvious fact:

    Alaska’s practice of collecting and distributing an oil “vig” to its citizens is a VERY collectivist way to go about things.

    I’m calling it a vig because it scarcely matters how the practice is structured. Individual Alaskans get their cut. Money flows out of some peoples pockets to the state government and then into the hands of all state citizens. It is essentially immaterial whether the collectivism takes the form of some sort of collective ownership, or a collected tax or a fee that is then redistributed.

    I’m tired of Sara Palin. She’s a lightweight, and if you ask me, a borderline numbskull of a parrot. Creative, original, wise solutions to difficult modern problems? Not her forte. She’s a nice enough woman, but IMO she is out of her league on the national stage. Do we really want another charismatic C student in charge of the country? I REALLY don’t. So if the folks propping her up persist in carrying her on their backs to the 2012 GOP nomination race, I look viciously forward to seeing Palin try to explain how wonderful she thinks this program is. Then she can suggest similar new opportunities for the federal government to undertake.

    After all, if it’s good for Alaska….I’ll take a government check for the auctioning off licenses to transmit phone signals, for example, Sounds good to me.

    Don’t anyone hold their breath waiting for Palin to explain how the Alaskan oil program accords with conservative veneration of private property. There is no explanation. It’s simply at odds with conservative philosophy. Now, some conservatives will tell you that giving the dough right back to the people is better than leaving it in the hands of the government to waste. And they’d be right. But that doesn’t make conservatism sympatico with collectivism.

    Let’s have some fun with this. How about a delicious rumor that Sara Palin thinks the Alaskan Oil program could be adapted to Texas? That would sure make some heads spin. Oh, wait. Don’t mess with Texas.

  22. kranky kritter Says:

    Parse the definitions and make up your own ones all you want. When everyone is done with wikipedia and all the special pleading, it’s still extraordinarily difficult to get around this pretty obvious fact:

    Alaska’s practice of collecting and distributing an oil “vig” to its citizens is a VERY collectivist way to go about things.

    I’m calling it a vig because it scarcely matters how the practice is structured. Individual Alaskans get their cut. Money flows out of some peoples pockets to the state government and then into the hands of all state citizens. It is essentially immaterial whether the collectivism takes the form of some sort of collective ownership, or a collected tax or a fee that is then redistributed.

    I’m tired of Sara Palin. She’s a lightweight, and if you ask me, a borderline numbskull of a parrot. Creative, original, wise solutions to difficult modern problems? Not her forte. She’s a nice enough woman, but IMO she is out of her league on the national stage. Do we really want another charismatic C student in charge of the country? I REALLY don’t. So if the folks propping her up persist in carrying her on their backs to the 2012 GOP nomination race, I look viciously forward to seeing Palin try to explain how wonderful she thinks this program is. Then she can suggest similar new opportunities for the federal government to undertake.

    After all, if it’s good for Alaska….I’ll take a government check for the auctioning off licenses to transmit phone signals, for example, Sounds good to me.

    Don’t anyone hold their breath waiting for Palin to explain how the Alaskan oil program accords with conservative veneration of private property. There is no explanation. It’s simply at odds with conservative philosophy. Now, some conservatives will tell you that giving the dough right back to the people is better than leaving it in the hands of the government to waste. And they’d be right. But that doesn’t make conservatism sympatico with collectivism.

    Let’s have some fun with this. How about a delicious rumor that Sara Palin thinks the Alaskan Oil program could be adapted to Texas? That would sure make some heads spin. Oh, wait. Don’t mess with Texas.

  23. Reaganite Republican Resistance Says:

    If Sarah Palin is SO silly and irrelevant, why the obsession? Clearly the Left noted her appeal, and are out to eliminate the threat- it’s not like it’s not obvious.

    And she’s been highly successful in life while ignoring the left-wing feminist model… this helps to explain the extra dose of venom in the attacks.

    Of course, the Democrats are plenty afraid of Palin coming-back at them in 2012 with a dynamic and complementary VP like Bobby Jindal… or visa versa.

    And they surely have reason to fear her- Palin is the most popular governor in the country… are all those people idiots? Alaska was a pretty corrupt system until she stepped in. Her reforms took on entrenched politicians (inc. Republicans), a mafioso-style union boss, and Big Oil.

    Wouldn’t it have been nice if Obama had been principled and brave enough to confront the corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine?

    Or shady political operators like Tony Rezko?

    Racist preachers?

    Instead of doing business with every last one of them?

    Go get em, Sarah- and don’t mind the press, nobody will be listening to them anymore after the pending Obamamania implosion- and once the ties of GE and others with media holdings to the Obama administration are fully exposed.

    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

  24. Jay Says:

    So a company BUYS oil off of a landowner. So the landowner (and resource owner) gets a check in the mail. Then the state government taxes the oil companies and spreads that money around collectively? WTF? How is this NOT socialism?

    For the first time in my life I have to ask: Where’s Joe the (wannabe) Plumber?

  25. gerryf Says:

    George,
    Sorry I misread you.

    ExiledIndependent,

    For 30+ years, the right has enacted policy after policy that has benefitted the rich at the expense of the poor. The entire premise of the right’s beloved supply side economics is to ensure the wealthy has as much money as possible and the wealth will trickle down to the less economically advantaged.

    Tax policies have ensured the wealthy get wealthier.

    You say the “the wealthy hiring and paying the poor a wage in return for a service provided, such as working in a factory” is proof that the wealthy have not been taking from the poor—have you been paying attention?

    There are fewer and fewer well paying jobs as the wealthy owners ship jobs overseas; when they cannot, they engage in anti-labor practices. They sacrifice the long-term health of the companies they manage for short term gain. Financial gimmicks have moved billions of dollars from middle class investments into upper class pockets.

    There was a time when we rewarded risk takers with wealth, and I don’t have a problem with that, but we have taken the risk out of business and privatized profit.

    The proof is in the results. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation’s net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1%.

    Did these people earn that wealth? Did they generate that wealth? Or did they just use the system to gather it?

    Just because it was done subtly and legally (and who made sure it was legal) does not make it right.

    Just because it is subtle

  26. the Word Says:

    RRR-
    I think I speak for many that if you think Palin-Jindal are the best you have you should run them.

    And if they are the best you have, it says…

    ALOT.

  27. Mike A. Says:

    RRR,

    I’m obsessed about many things in life. It does not translate into respect for the obsessed subject. Sometimes quite the opposite.

    “Here, then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study Reagan’s Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy.”

  28. TedM Says:

    I’m amazed at the latrge nyumber of urkeys that still hold Palin in hi9gh regard. Don’t they know what happens to turkeys in Alaska right out there in public view?

  29. Dgmt Says:

    If stupidity were methane, you could stop the global cooling of the past 10 years with this blog alone. Sarah Palin is intellectually superior to practically anyone who blogs here. If Justin’s IQ were any lower, he would stop breathing. Stupid is as stupid does, Forest Gardner.

    SP has a far better understanding of what is or isn’t socialism than your precious harvard uneducated moron-president, Barry O. Government Motors is Socialism, not ExxonMobil; AIG is socialism, not BP; the Federal Reserve is socialism, not ConocoPhillips.

    I love Sarah Palin, not just because she’s smarter than every democrat, independent and most republicans, but because she has the ability to draw all the knuckle-dragging libs to sites like this one, where they willingly expose their stupidity to the world. I LOVE the internet.

  30. Tully Says:

    How about a delicious rumor that Sara Palin thinks the Alaskan Oil program could be adapted to Texas?

    Er, maybe you should check out what Texas does with its public-domain oil revenues. (Hint: Google “Permanent University Fund” and “Permanent School Fund” plus “Texas.”) Nor are Texas and Alaska remotely the only states that benefit greatly from public-domain resources, just as the federal government does. They’re simply the most notable examples of states applying said revenue directly to expenditures and passing excess revenues through in some form to the citizens.

    Don’t anyone hold their breath waiting for Palin to explain how the Alaskan oil program accords with conservative veneration of private property. There is no explanation. It’s simply at odds with conservative philosophy.

    State ownership of public-domain lands does not conflict at all with private property rights, nor does it conflict with the “veneration” of same save in the more extreme capitalist philosophies that do not want a state at all (e.g., anarcho-capitalism). Especially don’t tell it to the monarchists….

    And in the West, the government itself was the primary owner of almost all land, generally by direct purchase. Ask Thomas Jefferson about the Louisiana Purchase, or Seward about his Folly….

    That the state itself may own property is inherently assumed in the existence of states. That it may actually return some portion of the revenues generated by state property to the citizens of same rather than simply absorbing it all is likewise hardly antithetical to fiscal conservativism, but rather the reverse.

    When you get to arguing the nature of socialism, don’t forget to distinguish between the state holding on to what it legitimately* had to begin with by primary ownership, as compared to the state expropriating resources from established private owners.

    [* -- "legitimate" of course being question-begging when states acquire their property through conquest, but still...]

  31. American Says:

    I left a post several days ago.

    There was nothing wrong with the post, no vulgar language, not out of line, ect…ect…
    but it was never posted or allowed to be posted by the so called moderators of this site.

    Pure and simple, the post was about Democrats, what they believed in and how that conflicted with their other beliefs.

    By not allowing the post to be “posted” its more than obvious this sites moderators are leftist liberal censors.

    Afraid to let the truth be told, they instead took the low ground and followed the communist censorship path.

  32. Justin Gardner Says:

    American, you’ve NEVER posted a comment here, and as the message below says in “NOTE TO COMMENTERS” it was probably held in moderation or got caught in the spam filters.

    Things fall through the cracks. I have a day job. I don’t get paid to do this. Please don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s a conspiracy because ONE comment didn’t post.

    Jeezus…sometimes…

  33. American Says:

    Justin,
    I find it funny that I post a comment stating my post WASN”T POSTED and you in turn state “you’ve NEVER posted a comment here”.

    ———–

    As to your “things fall through the cracks” comment, I posted the comment, waited a day, then reposted just to give you the benefit of the doubt. Still, the comment was not posted, thus the above response that was meant for the moderators of this site.

    One has to wonder why the first two post fall into the depths of space but the one intended for you and your mods, magically finds its way.

    ————
    Even then, assuming that what you say is true, one has to wonder why you would respond with “conspiracy” as your main point.

    Perhaps you should reset your spam filter as to not automatically delete comments that you don’t necessarily agree with.

    Just a thought. Have a great day.

  34. mw Says:

    American,
    You are off base. Justin edits nothing based on political content, as any regular here will tell you. I argue with him here all the time. There is no staff of moderators. Just one guy running a busy site. Anything can trigger a spam filter, links, words, whatever. There are hundreds of spam posts that hit this site everyday. Some legitimate posts get lost. Some spam gets through. Get over it.

  35. Justin Gardner Says:

    American,

    Once again, you’ve never posted a comment at the site before you posted the first time the other day. That’s why all of your comments were held in moderation.

    Mike, I will correct you on one thing. If a comment appears to be a spammy, strident political message that somebody would simply throw into ANY comment thread just to get their message spread far and wide…it gets deleted.

    This is done for two reasons.

    First, I hate it when people just post stuff out of context just so they can be heard. This is OUR house, not theirs, and as such they should respect the fact that they can’t just say ANYTHING they want regardless of the topic.

    Second, and most importantly, it’s done to maintain the integrity of the site as a place for civil discourse and I do it for messages from the left, right and everything in between. If I let everything through that people posted, things would devolve quickly and other commenters would get off track responding to somebody who really has no interest in talking.

    In short, if somebody is a troll…they shouldn’t expect their comment to post.

  36. American Says:

    MW, I was with you and more than willing to take your word for it, let it go, if you will, until you left your little snide remark “Get over it”.

    Well, MW, if you don’t mind being censored for a perfectly legit comment then more power to you and your communist buddies.

    If, however, you believe we should be able to post regardless of our political beliefs, in a civil manner, then you should have stopped spouting after you made your point.

    To more to the point here, if there are that many messages falling through the cracks then shouldn’t this be addressed?

    Anyway, the first comment, above that WAS posted was only for the moderators as it appeared they were deleting my post. Since Justin has assured me this isn’t the case….shall we move on? And, perhaps, be civil?

    Thanks

  37. Justin Gardner Says:

    American,

    Of course we can move on. Just please refrain from stereotyping anybody here as leftist liberal, communists censors the next time. It’s decidedly uncivil and it absolutely warranted the very mild condemnation of “get over it.”

  38. American Says:

    You people aren’t right in the head.

    Justin, how could the “get over it” remark be warranted BEFORE I had ever even spoken to MW?

    What did he want me to get over? That my post had vanished like a fart in the wind?

    I’m out here …

  39. Nick Benjamin Says:

    You people aren’t right in the head.

    Of course they’re not right in the head. They’re moderates. They’re all mushy and centrist in the head.

    And this is the internet. If one guy being a little brusque can get you this worked up you probably won’t enjoy internet debate much.

    I, for example, just managed to agree with Justin and MW, but still managed to give them a hard time about being moderate. This was cruel, mean, and nasty. But I did it anyway. Justin and MW will give me a hard time for being a leftist type sometime in the future and we’ll all be even.

  40. Justin Gardner Says:

    American,

    I’m guessing you’re new to comments sections, but people often talk to others who didn’t address them first. Not only that, mw is an author here and knows how the back end of the site works.

    So, just some free advice, if you really want to engage people in debate in comments sections, you better bone up on how all of this works. Otherwise it’ll be frustrating indeed.

    Nick, just for future reference, I consider myself a Democrat with some independent leanings, but a Democrate nonetheless. mw, meanwhile, is centrist by design. He always votes for the party that’s out of power in hopes that it’ll be balanced. An intriguing strategy to say the least, but one he hasn’t been able to convince me is worth pursuing…yet. :-)

  41. American Says:

    “Never argue with the feeble minded…you’ll never win”

    So, with that, I bid you fare well.

  42. Justin Gardner Says:

    American, I didn’t think you could top yourself, but I was wrong.

    Bravo sir!

  43. mw Says:

    What?! This is still going on? I have not seen so many false endings since the 3rd Lord of the Rings. C’mon! Goodbye already!

    Comrades! We don’t have time for this nonsense! Our weekly secret politburo meeting starts in a few minutes. This is an important meeting. We need to decide which comments to censor next. I don’t want to be working on this all night. Lets get started!

  44. Todd Says:

    You know what I love about “discussions” on political sites?

    This guy, American, isn’t even upset because you (allegedly) wouldn’t let him share what HE thinks.

    If you read that first post, apparently his whole purpose for coming here in the first place, was to “educate” us on what WE (those of us who occasionally have Democratic leanings anyway) really Think/Believe.

    Too funny.

    Oh, and even though he’s bid us farewell twice now, I’m sure he’ll be back soon. :-)

  45. Justin Gardner Says:

    mw and Todd, he’s reading this right now.

    Now, back to the censorship meeting. You know who I really hate? Pennsylvanians. Anything coming from PA gets the kabosh. Deal?

  46. Kyle Brady: Blog - A Plea for Democracy Says:

    [...] reform bill:  the forced euthanasia of the elderly / general “rationing” of healthcare, the destruction of Capitalism, medical symbols mutated to look like Nazi propaganda, and the list continues.  If the current [...]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: