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.
The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
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.oftenreading said:jeffbr said:
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.oftenreading 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
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."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
I like Kamala Harris as the nominee.
I don't see the point of attacking other candidates.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
Biden is the nominee, and next POTUS, if dems don't fuck it up
0 -
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 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
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 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?0 -
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...0 -
To prop up the oil industry... just left airport bar and a handful of vodka soda...0
-
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 shelf0 -
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.oftenreading said:mrussel1 said:To prop up the oil industry... just left airport bar and a handful of vodka soda...
Flying..... further propping up the oil industry0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
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.
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
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.Meltdown99 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
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.0 -
When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
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.
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.Give Peas A Chance…0 -
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.Meltdown99 said:
When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
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.
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.
0 -
They were still bail out. No different than the auto sector being bailed out. Let them fail.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Meltdown99 said:
The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fundmrussel1 said:
Right, so why do we continue to subsidize?PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Yes I know. I didn't say it was only for employees. I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start.tempo_n_groove said:
This is wrong. You only have to be a resident of Alaska. You don't need to work for an oil company.mrussel1 said:
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".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?
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...
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.
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.
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.Give Peas A Chance…0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help