As you know, Palin and McCain are hitting on Obama being a socialist and wanting to spread the wealth. But I thought you would be interested in hearing, in Palin's own words, about how Alaskans manage to get a check from the state every year:
"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
That's Palin describing oil up in Alaska. So let me get this straight. Everybody in Alaska owns the oil resources collectively,? And everybody gets the same check no matter what they may or may not have done to earn it? And that's not socialism?
The entire article can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Wow!! now why doesn't this stuff come out in the mainstream?
Hm... Do you think you could be misapplying Governor Palin's comment? If I may expound on what I believe she means: Collectively, Alaskans share in the resources of the state, meaning, they (the citizens) all use them (the resources). This has nothing to do with a paycheck, or redistribution of wealth. And when new ways of using a resource is found... then everyone is able to "share in the wealth."
Picture it like you're sitting around a dinner table with your family... you're all eating the same food, in different amounts of course, but the same food none the less. Then, when dinner (the resource) is done, a new course is served that everyone looks forward too- dessert (the new resource). When that comes out, everyone can share that as well. Even though its probably not you personally that actually cooked the food or what have you. Does that make sense?
It sounds like you're saying (I could be very wrong in my interpretation, please let me know if I am) that you don't think people should have access to as much of a resource as they need. Because, that "sounds like socialism" (an issue for which Conservatives are hammering Obama http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/). Socialism is everyone getting the same amount even though not everyone does the same amount of work. If everyone in Alaska only got 5 gallons of gas a week, even though some could afford more and some couldn't afford it at all; that would be socialism. But, the fact that everyone in Alaska is able to have equal access to resources doesn't mean they all are given the same amount by the government. Some get more because they can afford more, some get less because they can't afford as much... it is not a case of everyone getting the same amount no matter how much you can afford.
Thanks for thinking about these things! I certainly respect your opinion and your freedom to hold an opinion (even if I disagree with it). From a Conservative... thanks for caring about the issues.
www.conciseconservatism.com
Socialism is not about everybody getting the exact same amount and I've never heard a socialist make that statement. Though if that's your perceived definition of socialism, then guess what, everybody getting the exact same check every year from the Alaska government, would probably qualify. The state owns the oil, not a private company. State ownership of the commanding heights of the economy is some socialists ides of socialism. (I say some, because others would disagree. Heck, even hardcore Marxists might disagree because they see they state withering away) So that's probably another strike against Palin.
Ok, what's your definition of socialism? You wouldn't say that redistribution and equal amount of benefits for unequal amounts of work isn't socialism? Interesting...
anyway, what are talking about when you say "everybody getting the exact same check every year from the Alaskan government." are you saying that's happened? if so, where's your source?
Some socialists idea of socialism... is still socialism. isn't it? what would you say it is...?
Of course, there are differing views about every idea, belief, and even religion etc.
Post a Comment