« Thank you, John McCain and Sarah Palin | Main | Vouchers, please »
November 05, 2008
Woe the Obama Cultist
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Posted by Darleen at November 5, 2008 09:33 PM
Comments
That's President-elect Obama to you.
Posted by: Josh at November 5, 2008 09:41 PM
I'd like to see a similar documentary about the PUMAs and the Sarah Palin fangirls. At least the obsessive Obama fans get to watch their man become a great President and world leader in the coming years. Sounds pretty damn satisfying to me.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 02:57 AM
They are going to freak when they find out that they still have to work for a living, no free gas and no free houses.
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 08:03 AM
ML,
Maybe they'll move to Alaska and start collecting those checks that Palin sends out from the socialization of oil resources.
Posted by: Josh at November 6, 2008 09:02 AM
Josh
Do you know when that started and why?
And what really funds it?
It started in 1976 and it does not fit any of the definitions of socialism.
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 10:21 AM
State ownership of natural resources meets every definition of socialism.
Posted by: Josh at November 6, 2008 03:57 PM
Well in that case public parks are socialism, and public streets, water, sewer, storm-drain all either city or county owned and according to you its all socialism.
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 04:07 PM
Well, those aren't really capital in the same way that oil resources are. But essentially yes, that's why the socialism charge was so stupid. Glad you're seeing the light.
Posted by: Josh at November 6, 2008 05:08 PM
Josh
Socialism is the state owning/controlling the MEANS of production
Just as capitalism is the private ownership of the MEANS of production
Yes, there is more, but that is the basic difference.
AK residents getting royalties is little different than shareholders getting dividends, or landlords getting rent.
If AK seized the oil companies means of production...taking over the pumps, buildings, refineries, etc (ala Hugo Chavez) THAT is socialism.
I understand your attempt to label it socialism... like saying anyone in America who drives on public roads or walks on public sidewalks has partaken of socialism so is thereby forbidden to debate the point ... is really just a hamhanded tactic to shut down discussion.
ain't gonna work.
Posted by: Darleen at November 6, 2008 05:37 PM
Ha! ML, I think you're starting to comprehend. Hope is not lost. I have a feeling there's a great many Americans who are in for a class action lesson in Common Sense 101.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 05:38 PM
So...uh...if AK residents getting royalties from oil profits is ok with the capitalistas....doesn't that mean all the states who are contiguous with the offshore drilling fields should get automatic equal shares in the profits taken THERE? Do/did Texans and Oklahomans and such get shares of THEIR oil that's taken from under them? how about all the other natural resources? Do residents of the Pacific Northwest get shares of the lumber that is harvested or the fish that are caught? If we all own the resources and are entitled to our even share in the profits taken from them...err...how is that not socialist? Because you swap a few words around to say it's not controlling the means, therefore it's not socialism?
Actually, though, you're right. It's not socialism. And neither is the progressive income tax. Believe me, John McCain knows that. He chose to exploit a non-issue, making a fool of himself in the process, because he was gambling that there are enough snake oil customers left out there in Red America.
We pay taxes so we can use common resources and share in common benefits that we can't provide individually. We pay taxes so we can pay people like Darleen in their jobs serving the common good.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 05:55 PM
Leah
you're so wrong on so many levels it boogles the mind
Progressive taxes in order to rob Peter to pay Paul on the premise that it is "unfair" for Peter to make more regardless of circumstance is collectivism. It is anathema to individual rights and thus anti-American.
Government is a compact with the citizens ... it is easier for people to find protection and secure their INHERENT rights with a restricted, Constitutional government. Government is to PROVIDE a common defense. Military, police -- and a neutral arena where disputes are settled -- ie the judiciary. PROMOTE the general welfare is to legislate to ALLOW conditions in which people flourish (or fail) on their own. Traffic laws, business/health/safety codes, marriage statutes, patents, copyrights, contract law, et al.
Taxes are assessed to pay for the NECESSARY and PROPER functions of government. And taxes are to be assessed properly. The federal government, too, is enjoined from any direct tax without apportionment, which is why the SCOTUS declared income taxes unconstitutional at one point.
The power to tax is the power to destroy and Leftists like to wrap their basic envy at others' success in some preening faux morality.
Posted by: Darleen at November 6, 2008 06:19 PM
Josh
The Natural Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is federalally owned land no different really from a public park or other public infrastructure.
Publicly traded oil companies not a government agency lease the land, pump the oil, refine it and transfer it to market and collect the profit. The only socialism is the land being government owned, very different then Obama’s Marxist brand of socialism with the wealth transfer.
I also never claimed that levels of socialism do not exist in America today, the argument is against Obama expanding it.
“Its not that liberals are dumb, its that they know so much that isn’t so” Ronald Reagan
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 06:41 PM
"The power to tax is the power to destroy"...and the power to keep Darleen's pay checks coming.
The irony here is hilarious! The only use for government is to lock up bad people...so "good people" can keep making money. We don't need any way to ensure comprehensive education of our children, or roads or bridges or water reservoirs. We don't need any means to ensure the safety of our water or our air or our food supply. Old people without savings don't need to be cared for with dignity. Children born into poverty don't need health care or housing or special education.
The only use for tax dollars is Cops and Armies and conservative Judges to lock people up. Aside from that, people will just thrive in the natural paradise of unregulated capitalism. Ask the people of New Orleans or the millions losing their jobs due to the Wall Street meltdown.
In Alaska, citizens who do NO work to drill or refine oil ALL receive a cut of the profits. I actually think that's awesome, and I'm sure the mostly impoverished residents of that capitalist paradise would agree. It's the best kind of socialism - where you pretend it's all about self reliance while you suck off the government teat. You get to reap unearned profits while still congratulating yourself for what a rugged individualist you are.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 06:52 PM
Leah
So...uh...if AK residents getting royalties from oil profits
That’s completely incorrect and the reason for the misunderstanding.
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 07:02 PM
Well it's from Darleen's own words:
"AK residents getting royalties is little different than shareholders getting dividends, or landlords getting rent."
She thinks AK residents getting oil profits is the same as landlords getting rent for the buildings they OWN as private property. She is equating public resources with private property. And yet, here in the lower 48, we don't reap profits from the coal or the game or the minerals or the fertile farmland or any of the other common natural resources in our states.
I try to grasp wingnut logic. is Alaska oil the ONLY natural resource that citizens have a right to .... just like Darleen's government job is the ONLY legitimate use of taxpayer funded salaries?
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 07:10 PM
The dividend that qualified persons of Alaska receive is from a fund created by a state constitutional amendment and based upon the funds performance, it is financed from already received mineral, oil and gas taxes.
Other citizens in other states also benefit from that states natural resources through their taxation and thus into the state coffer, it may not be as direct as that in Alaska, but its all the same really. Alaska is also different from other states, winters are difficult with a lot of people not working, not something you find much in the lower 48.
Posted by: ML at November 6, 2008 08:18 PM
Uh, Darleen, oil is the means of production. It is a factor of production of gasoline. I suggest you read up on socialism before making yourself appear even more ignorant. The capitalist thing to do would be for the state to auction off the oil fields so they would be privately owned, but then Sarah Palin couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul and keep herself in office.
Posted by: Josh at November 7, 2008 09:24 AM
oil is the means of production. It is a factor of production of gasoline. I suggest you read up on socialism before making yourself appear even more ignorant.
That statement makes no sense.
but then Sarah Palin couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul and keep herself in office.
Ironic that you think Darleen is ignorant, when make statements like those.
Posted by: ML at November 7, 2008 09:49 AM
I'll explain it really carefully so you might get it, ML. The state of Alaska, rather than selling off oil rights so that the resource will be in private hands, leases them so it may charge a premium to the private companies to exploit the oil. Those companies then charge higher prices. The state of Alaska, in turn distributes funds collected from the oil companies to its citizens. Thus the American gas consumer, through Alaska's refusal to sell the oil on the free market where it can be most efficiently exploited, subsidizes Alaska residents. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Posted by: Josh at November 7, 2008 03:06 PM
It's not unusual for Republicans to feel comfortable with outrageous hypocrisies like we see here. This is from a comment at Red State, no lefty liberal site:
People are not afraid of Socialism, it is an acceptable political outcome. Well, be honest. The voters have long supported socialism. This country was dominated for 50 years by the New Deal coalition, remember? The Reagan and Gingrich revolutions were never against the New Deal. They were against the Great Society. Thus, people have never opposed socialism for themselves. People have for decades wanted free public schools, grants to go to college, retirements, medical care, money to keep their businesses and farms afloat, etc. So in other words, Americans supported the socialism that benefitted them and people like them. They just opposed it for the other guy. The Great Society was easy pickings, because it went to a small segment of society that, let's face it, most people didn't like anyway.
But the GOP never even seriously tried to cut off the spigot of the huge amounts of money going to "real Americans." By contrast, the GOP actually gave away more money to their constituents than the Democrats ever dreamed of giving to their inner city base. Remember when Democrats were pointing out that "red state America" was a net economic drain while "blue state America" paid more taxes than they spent? It was 100% true, yet the next GOPer who stood up before his "real American" constituents of suburbanites and middle Americans and told them that they needed to get off welfare and stand on their own two feet would be the first. No, that was a message for the folks in Barack Obama's inner city, not the Iowans whose economic boom the past few years has been totally due to the government funded ethanol industry.
The GOP needs to come up with a "no socialism for anybody" message instead of the "no socialism for the people who we don't like and don't vote for us but plenty of socialism for 'our types of people the real Americans'" message and actions that have dominated the GOP since 1980.
By the way: small government Sarah Palin actually increased spending in her state. So why did we presume that she supported small government and less spending? Simple: because she is a Republican from a state that doesn't have a Chicago, Detroit or Harlem in it. That is precisely the problem that I am speaking of.
I think he's got it exactly right. The Republicans need to be honest about the true meaning of the far right agenda. Lay it out for people - no Medicare, no Social Security, no retirement except for the wealthy, no public schools, no college for anyone but the rich, no farm subsidies, no ethanol subsidies, no more welfare for red state America paid for by blue state America. Lay it out and let people vote on the truth. I think that would be great. Let Americans CHOOSE what philosophy they want to govern this country.
Posted by: Leah at November 7, 2008 03:24 PM
Josh
You’re wrong on all accounts.
First off unlike California and other states the oil reserves in Alaska are on federally owned land, this land was already owned by the feds before the oil reserve was discovered.
Not any tree hugging liberals are going to allow the state of Alaska to sell the biggest national park in America to private companies for the exploration of oil and other stuff, why a liberal would suggest that is just beyond bizarre.
All states charge fuel taxes so all states are robbing Exon Mobil for the benefit of the people.
The federal government charges fuel taxes and income taxes, also robbing those for the benefit of them.
Posted by: ML at November 7, 2008 03:41 PM
"Those companies then charge higher prices." And yet, somehow, I believe that Josh would support windfall profits taxes that would do the exact same thing.
Did you know that Exxon Mobil paid out $30 billion dollars in taxes last year? That's more than the income tax payments of 60% of the entire country. Yet they're the bad guys.
Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2008 03:07 AM
That's even worse, ML. Not only are we subsidizing Alaskan deadbeats, but they don't even own the land that is the source of the subsidy. I'm in favor of free markets, you see, with government intervention when necessary to prevent market failures and ensure that the conditions necessary for capitalism are present. Now, if you could, please explain why holding an auction for title to the land in question would not be the proper free-market thing to do.
Actually, Chris, windfall profits taxes are just populist demagoguery, and I'm not sure what Exxon's tax rate has to do with Hugo Palin's socialization of oil wealth. So now you've made an ass of yourself.
Posted by: Josh at November 8, 2008 09:36 AM
Now, if you could, please explain why holding an auction for title to the land in question would not be the proper free-market thing to do.
I already did.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 12:33 PM