America's 'Socialist' State

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

LowriseMinis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Fresno, California
Which politician said this in August of their home state? That it is "set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively (state name) own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
 
My guess would be... Alaska.
default_smile.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I did want to note that I do not believe Alaska actually is a socialist state, nor do I think Palin is a socialist. But if we're going to claim Obama's a Marxist or socialist or whatever else because he said 'spread the wealth', we need to be fair about how we apply these labels.
 
So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
I have a sister that lives in Alaska and everyone gets a check to share the wealth. They do not take it from the rich and give it to the poor. EVERY man, woman and child gets one. So this does in NOWAY compare to Obamas remark.
default_wacko.png
 
Actually, if people would LISTEN to his entire remark and not use it as they see fit, they would realize that McCain/Palins use of it in no way resembles his remark. But alas, that would be way too moral for the direction this campaign has gone. "I dont have any new ideas, so hey, lets attack the other guy!!" Kinda suprised we havent heard that the future holds a mushroom cloud if we vote for Obama
default_no.gif
guess that will come this weekend
 
And while we're at it, let's look at the first line from the 'socialism' article in Wikipedia.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."

No mention of spreading the wealth there, which both Obama and Palin have said. However, it does meantion 'state or collective ownership'.

Palin's quote, again: "And Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." AND "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”

So, Palin's the one talking collective ownership, not Obama. She even USED the word socialist. Collective ownership by the proletariat (working class) is a CORNERSTONE of socialist theory. Taxing, and using that tax to redistribute money, is almost universal through all economic systems.

I'd say, if anything, Palin sounds a little closer to socialism than Obama.
 
If funds have been distributed since 1982 where was and what did Governor Palin have to do with its creation?

1982 -$1,000.00
If the Alaskans don't like this set up and don't want to get this money back each year wouldn't they collectively boot her out of office?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cathy, please read my earlier posts. I said I do not believe that Palin is a socialist, I do not believe Alaska is a socialist state, and I never said Palin was responsible for the formation of this fund.

However, people are calling Obama a socialist or more because of his 'sharing the wealth' comment. Palin said the exact same thing-and more socialist sounding things!

So if Obama is a socialist because he wants to share the wealth, so is Palin. What applies to one must, in fairness, apply to the other.

They are either both socialists or neither of them are.
 
I don't have to read the link to be able to figure out where the wealth comes from...even without knowing previously that Alaskans share in the proceeds from the state's resources. This is quite different from robin hood's philosphy of rob from the rich to give to the poor...

I am trying to figure out how living in Alaska makes Sarah Palin closer to socialism than Obama...I'm thinking that she didn't have anything much to do with Alaska's collective ownership of resources...and she didn't even say the state is socialist, only that it is sometimes called that....because some call it that doesn't make it so.

Selling a state resource and giving equal shares to each and every resident is a little different from telling the rich that they must give 10% of their wealth to the government so that it can be redistributed amongst the poor (And don't, please, jump on that 10%, that's just a number I pulled out of a hat to illustrate my point.)

Alaska shares the wealth from the sale of resources, so that makes it okay that Obama wants WELFARE. Gotcha, makes perfect sense.
default_wacko.png
 
Again, collective ownership is a cornerstone of socialism.

Taxation is not.

This is also an interesting article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397938/

Some fun quotes:

But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:
Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
 
So if Obama is a socialist because he wants to share the wealth, so is Palin. What applies to one must, in fairness, apply to the other
.
I won't disagree there, but in Alaska we're talking about resources on public land benefitting the people that are residents on that land............. She is not spreading the wealth of those residents via forced redistribution of their hard earned income like Obama wants to do.
 
So McCain's going to completely eliminate taxes?
I wasn't discussing McCain but since you brought it up I do remember McCain asking Obama during one of the debates - "WHY DO we have to raise anyones taxes right now"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
double post
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is McCain going to completely eliminate taxes, yes or no? Because if he does not, he is participating in the EXACT SAME forced distribution of wealth that Obama is.
 
There was a president a while back who cut taxes quite a bit and the whole thing failed. Taxes are a necessity but we've got to get over the "gouge the rich" philosophy. The rich don't pay their share....they pay more. I think 80% (not looking for the actual number you want it go look) of the actual income from tax revenue comes from the rich. Yet we, as middle class, think ya go get 'em when it comes to taxes. Do you not think the low income class looks at us with our pickups and "toy" type horses don't think the same about us?

Good lord I watch Paris Hilton flip her blonde hair with that vapid expression on her face I would love to see her taxed to the point of having to flip burgers for a living but is that fair? Did she do anything to obtain that wealth, of course not but most middle class members are born into middle class and do not have to fight their way out of the lower ranks either.

We are a family run cow/calf operation who also farm, the taxes we pay are getting higher and higher because more land around us is being bought for bigger and bigger amounts by large farms. Of course we grumble when we pay taxes but I do not look for a candidate that is "going to do me a favor" by cutting taxes because taxes are the grease that run the wheel.

The thing "I" don't understand is how people think we can cut taxes for the middle and lower class and raise them on the rich (so at best it will be a wash) and still fund the billions of dollars worth of programs Obama is selling. I know the easy answer is the war but if you do any research you will see that neither candidate is expected to pull out of Iraq in the next five years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top