The Democratic Candidates

16791112194

Comments

  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,664
    jeffbr said:
    Warren has put out a whole lot of ideas about a whole lot of policies. I don't know why anyone would think she's going to hang her hat on these specifically for her platform. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/powerup/2019/03/11/powerup-warren-is-leading-the-2020-battle-of-ideas/5c8581991b326b2d177d6042/?utm_term=.0517fecaebb4
    Perhaps she should focus her message then. That is the danger of shotgunning. Start talking about issues that distract from the focus and potentially lose votes. If those issues aren't a focus, then talk about what is. The issues above were examples of issues that will turn off some voters and make her less relevant or realistic as a candidate the more time she spends on them.  The reparations issue in particular was brought up on the last page by someone who likes her as a candidate but was concerned about her spending time on that particular issue. I understand and share that concern.

    There's plenty of time yet to focus the message. I like seeing the ideas coming out. I think she's smart to test out a whole range of ideas and then narrow down on the ones that have wide based appeal. 
    Fair enough. I just know with such a crowded field and the primaries in a year that things need to start getting narrowed pretty quickly. The GOP killed themselves by leaving such a large slate of candidates all the way to convention, fracturing the party and ushering in Trump. The Dems need to be a little more united going into convention to have any hope, and having 20 candidates in their clown car scatter shooting ideas all over the place isn't going to help build a cohesive message or plan to replace SCROTUS. 
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • ikiTikiT USAPosts: 7,916
    I like Kamala Harris as the nominee. 
    I don't see the point of attacking other candidates.
    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011 
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,118
    Biden is the nominee, and next POTUS, if dems don't fuck it up
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,887
    I always have at least one eye on "electability" vs. "best candidate."  This time, it's all I really care about.  The longer this Trump nonsense goes on, the more we become accustomed to it and the further we are down the road toward authoritarianism and/or a Trump Dynasty.  So quite frankly, I have minimal interest in talking about the differences between their policies, etc.  I generally like Warren, but she would have absolutely no chance to win.  I personally don't feel like any woman would but she in particular seems to be the right's New Hillary.  The heritage thing is going to be an anchor around her neck and going all-in on things like reparations will not help.  

    The party?  They party seems to be thinking that Trump's a buffoon (true) and not very popular (not as true as they think) so let's go totally liberal.  At least that's the sense I get.  AOC (not old enough to run, thankfully) is the party's biggest star (partly fed by the right's demonization) and the Dems almost seem to welcome the attacks of "socialism!!!"  Why?  Because they think the voters will be smart enough to separate the attacks from reality?  Because they don't think socialism is a dirty word?  Because Trump is that bad?  

    Who am I pulling for?  Whoever is most electable (not really sure who that is).  The party looks primed to screw this up.  
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,434
    We’re a year and a half out. A little less than a year to the first primary and caucus. There is a whole lot that can and will happen between now and then. The convention will determine the party’s platform and primary voters will determine the candidate to best represent the eventual platform. A whole lot of happening.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,763
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,763
    edited March 19
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,263
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    To prop up the oil industry... just left airport bar and a handful of vodka soda...
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,434
    mrussel1 said:
    To prop up the oil industry... just left airport bar and a handful of vodka soda...

    Flying..... further propping up the oil industry ;)
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    To prop up the oil industry... just left airport bar and a handful of vodka soda...

    Flying..... further propping up the oil industry ;)
    A painful,  yet necessary evil for me.  Although I was next to the  lovely arena where I saw the Vs. back in 16. That's a nice memory of a classic show. 
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,263
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,263
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
    When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

    How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
    When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

    How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  
    The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.


  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,263
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
    When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

    How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  
    The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.


    They were still bail out.  No different than the auto sector being bailed out.  Let them fail. 

    Alaska Permanent Fund
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

    As of the end of 2016, the fund is worth nearly $55 billion that has been funded by oil revenues.[5]

    I think Alaska will be fine.  Maybe if the government was run as well as this organization we'd all be better off...and it is funded by oil revenues, nowhere have I seen it state that the federal government chips in.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,392
    my2hands said:
    Calling her Pocahontas is racist but lying about her heritage for decades isn't...

    Lol, yeah, ok




    Do you have specific proof of what she specifically did that was illegal, considering she was told throughout her life her parents eloped because it was known both grandparents on her mother’s side had some Cherokee or Delaware blood?

    Let's use, for this exercise, the Trump Witch Hunt Threshold of Evidence.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
    When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

    How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  
    The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.


    They were still bail out.  No different than the auto sector being bailed out.  Let them fail. 

    Alaska Permanent Fund
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

    As of the end of 2016, the fund is worth nearly $55 billion that has been funded by oil revenues.[5]

    I think Alaska will be fine.  Maybe if the government was run as well as this organization we'd all be better off...and it is funded by oil revenues, nowhere have I seen it state that the federal government chips in.
    Several things...

    1. Yes like the auto industry which was absolutely the right thing to do.  If you think that the executives would have suffered if GM failed,  then you're wrong.  It's the thousands connected to the industry through the supply chain and dealerships that would have been hurt.  Look no further than Sears for that evidence 

    2. I think WIKI is wrong.  The money is from tax revenues is my educated guess.  Today,  5% of US oil is from Alaska.  Why wouldn't the oil companies fight,  successfully,  to kill the fund if it was coming straight from revenue? Why not leave the state altogether? It makes no sense.  But if the state or fed is paying out of tax revenue, then it's no skin from them.  The oil companies pay taxes regardless.

     If im wrong,  then I am.  If it's straight from revenue,  then sure,  double it.  I don't care.  But if it comes from coffers, then it isn't free money,  it's tax dollars that could be targeted towards proper causes and people,  not just a grand for being alive, regardless of hot income. 
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,263
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?
    The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".
    This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.
    Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 
    Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.
    Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 
    But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.
    Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?
    The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

     https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

    Do you live in Alaska? 

    If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

    If you want the money, move to Alaska...

    I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

    I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...




    If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  
    I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

    So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.


    If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 
    When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

    How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  
    The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.


    They were still bail out.  No different than the auto sector being bailed out.  Let them fail. 

    Alaska Permanent Fund
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

    As of the end of 2016, the fund is worth nearly $55 billion that has been funded by oil revenues.[5]

    I think Alaska will be fine.  Maybe if the government was run as well as this organization we'd all be better off...and it is funded by oil revenues, nowhere have I seen it state that the federal government chips in.
    Several things...

    1. Yes like the auto industry which was absolutely the right thing to do.  If you think that the executives would have suffered if GM failed,  then you're wrong.  It's the thousands connected to the industry through the supply chain and dealerships that would have been hurt.  Look no further than Sears for that evidence 

    2. I think WIKI is wrong.  The money is from tax revenues is my educated guess.  Today,  5% of US oil is from Alaska.  Why wouldn't the oil companies fight,  successfully,  to kill the fund if it was coming straight from revenue? Why not leave the state altogether? It makes no sense.  But if the state or fed is paying out of tax revenue, then it's no skin from them.  The oil companies pay taxes regardless.

     If im wrong,  then I am.  If it's straight from revenue,  then sure,  double it.  I don't care.  But if it comes from coffers, then it isn't free money,  it's tax dollars that could be targeted towards proper causes and people,  not just a grand for being alive, regardless of hot income. 
    GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

    You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,434

    HOW IT ALL BEGAN

    The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973

    HOW IT ALL BEGAN

    The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/
    This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,434
    mrussel1 said:

    HOW IT ALL BEGAN

    The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/
    This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

    How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973

    GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

    You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g
    So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:

    HOW IT ALL BEGAN

    The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/
    This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

    How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 
    If that's the case,  how you define it,  then yes I have no issues with it,  if it doesn't come from tax revenue.  If it/ you are saying the oil companies put in a 100 million in 1978 or whatever,  and everything paid out is earned interest,  like an endowment,  them genius,  so long as the fed never contributed tax dollars to it,  therefore entitled to the earned equity. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    Biden leading,  Sanders down by 8, Harris jumping. Certainly the leaders benefit greatly from name recognition. 

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434792-biden-leads-cnn-poll-but-harris-sanders-on-the-rise
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,973
    mrussel1 said:

    HOW IT ALL BEGAN

    The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/
    This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

    How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 
    So here's what's odd though,  I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity,  why would the price per barrel matter? 
    Anyway,  doesn't matter.  I'm against corporate welfare as a practice,  except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology,  although I think private equity is a better path.  Definitely against long term subsidies. 
This discussion has been closed.