No comments on my comment that NO Alaskan politician has any experience in raising money for governmental service - real estate, income, or sales taxes. This results in a mind set that money is from the tooth fairy (or myth figure of your choice). All they know is how to spend. It is also a serious problem that the entire Alaskan economy is from resource extraction or the federal largesse. Almost every economy which has raised their funds that way has been a ruined economy, statewide, and world wide. Until forced to develop a healthy economy regions relying on resource based assets have almost never made the sacrifices to develop a modern economy.
I don't think this is a fair comment. There is nothing wrong with generating tax revenue from mineral rights. Nevada generates a substantial amount of revenue from tourism and gambling. Texas generates large revenues from Oil & Gas holdings. The situation in Alaska is hardly unique.
I don't know if voters ever make that choice based on which VP candidate they like more. But in case they do, Palin is probably a smart selection.
Voters instinctively don't like most of the major candidates, who're all self-selected for higher office. If Biden appealed to people on a gut level, he wouldn't have come in eighth in a seven-person primary. Obama probably chose him for lots of reasons, including both his foreign-policy knowledge and his potential appeal to blue-collar voters in key states like PA and Ohio. But we can rule out "charisma," because he reminds everyone of the loud uncle who harasses the referee at middle-school soccer games.
Biden answered the "gravitas" question for Obama. Just as Cheney did for Bush. Palin softens McCain and the GOP. She also provides an instant connection to undecided women, catholics and middle class voters. In a tight election, she could draw enough swing voters to turn several key states.
Texas has had a booming mixed economy for decades if not scores of years. Nevada may be developing a real economy. My comment may not be nice, but it is fair and true. Resource based economies around the world and the the US have not done well. By the way, gambling is not resource based economic activity.
Alaska has the lowest individual tax burden in the United States,[37] and is one of only five states with no state sales tax and one of seven states that do not levy an individual income tax. To finance state government operations, Alaska depends primarily on petroleum revenues. The Department of Revenue Tax Division reports regularly on the state's revenue sources. The Department also issues an annual overview of its operations, including new state laws that directly affect the tax division.
While Alaska has no state sales tax, 89 municipalities collect a local sales tax, from 1% to 7.5%, typically 3% to 5%. Other local taxes levied include raw fish taxes, hotel, motel, and B&B “bed” taxes, severance taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, gaming (pull tabs) taxes, tire taxes and fuel transfer taxes. A percentage of revenue collected from certain state taxes and license fees (such as petroleum, aviation motor fuel, telephone cooperative) is shared with municipalities in Alaska.
Property taxes are relatively low, with only 25 of 161 incorporated municipalities or boroughs in the state assessing property taxes.[citation needed] Fairbanks has one of the highest property taxes in the state as no sales or income taxes are assessed in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). A sales tax for the FNSB has been voted on many times, but has yet to be approved, leading law makers to increase taxes dramatically on other goods such as liquor and tobacco. The average per capita property tax paid in all municipalities, excluding oil and gas properties, was US$999 (2003 data).[citation needed]
In 2008 the Tax Foundation ranked Alaska as having the 4th most "business friendly" tax policy. Superior states were Wyoming, Nevada, and South Dakota.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Wyoming has had nothing but a resource extraction based economy for years. Every governor for the last 30 has promised to expand it, but nothing has ever happened. Something like 80% of our revenue is gross product and severence taxes on coal, natural gas, trona and oil.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"In 2008 the Tax Foundation ranked Alaska as having the 4th most "business friendly" tax policy. Superior states were Wyoming, Nevada, and South Dakota."
Exactly how is that pathetic? Please give a detailed response, since so far it has been na-na-na-po-po.
Wow, once again your superior debating skills have blown us all away. "na-na-na-po-po". Can I use that without attribution? Or maybe I'll add it to my signature.
Back to the topic of John (don't call him McSame) McCain's campaign strategy:
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Look, Tina, personal attack (#2) Let her have it!!!
My point. To say McCain is making a mockery of this election by his choice is a naive statement. Especially given his length of time serving as an elected official.
Nope, you're right, Bob. No one--on either side of the issue--should be attacking anyone personally in this forum. Lou summed it up well. Sorry, my country called me to serve as the death watch for 12 hrs during the airshow today or I would have seen this earlier. Luckily, the thunderbirds remained aloft.
It works fucking awesome. Low sales and property taxes and no income tax. Plus it pays my wages as well as my wife's. And it will pay for my kid's scholarships, hopefully.
So "na-na-na-po-po" I guess. At least until the resources run out or are no longer in high demand, then we're all pretty much fucked.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Old Man: I assumed you would have bought into the sarcasm I was expressing. The four states that The Tax Foundation listed are amongst the weakest economies outside the south. Actually I take that back, they have weaker economies than the south. Without federal subsidies at least two of the four are dead in the water. Wyoming and Nevada probably pays their own way, the other two - suck at the federal tit as if their life depends upon it - it likely does. And the Alaska and Wyoming economies have nothing of which is meritorious, Lincoln and Jefferson bought them for the US, along with the oil and coal contained therein. About as much as Saudi Arabia and Iraq etc can claim virtue for the oil they sell.
And the Alaska and Wyoming economies have nothing of which is meritorious, Lincoln and Jefferson bought them for the US, along with the oil and coal contained therein.
Wow.
Quote:
Without federal subsidies at least two of the four are dead in the water. Wyoming and Nevada probably pays their own way, the other two - suck at the federal tit as if their life depends upon it - it likely does.
Seems like they are bringing to the table what they have - natural resources needed by the rest of the country.
Also, isn't this what Obama has been preaching - the haves helping the have nots?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
I know exactly where you are coming from with your anger.
However, a slang term like 'chick' is hardly the same as any reference to her breasts or vagina.
Well I held back on my original retort where I believe Mark57 said something in another thread to the effect that she was picked for the size of her breasts. Can't say I've heard similar derogatory comments about the male candidates.
Quote:
In this particular case - not speaking just for John, but for several people that have referred to her with exactly that word, "chick" - it's a derogatory term aimed at her inexperience, disgust at her political extremes, along with a touch of a classic dismissal of anyone who has been involved in a beauty pageant.
"Chick" is loaded with sexism, if used in certain ways. That's for sure. But in regards to Palin I think it's more the equivalent of a "Check out what this asshole just did" for a male candidate.
Use all the derogatory, non-sexist terms you want. Asshole whould be fine. At least Patricia referred to her as that 'woman'.
Quote:
Sexism is a factor, just like racism is a real issue with Obama. But actively looking for it actually plays right into the sexist roles: You would be defending her because she's a woman. (I have no idea what your political views are, so maybe you would have anyway.)
I'm not defending her. I don't like when sexist terms are used to describe women. I could accept being called a 'chick' by a close friend...if a work collegue / supervisor called me or one of my female co-workers a 'chick' it would be totally inappropriate. Try calling your supervisor a chick.
Quote:
Perhaps look at it like this: there are many people who would have voted for Hillary over McCain/Palin. Yet these same people may dismiss her with terms like "chick".
again, my irritation has nothing to do which side of the political spectrum she's on. It pissed me off on the Hillary threads too. All of sudden we have a women candidate and there are videos of Hillary and Obama doing the 'nasty'.
Quote:
A reference point: A large 40-year-old man comes toe-to-toe with a scrawny 25 year old. The scrawny guy says something threatening. The large man says, "Walk away while you still can, little boy". Now, the large man doesn't hate little boys. He also knows that the 25 year old is not actually a "little boy". But, in this context, the scrawny guy is out of his league.. and the large man dismisses his attempt at toughness with the insulting phrase. It does not mean there should be an uprising of 25 year olds to respond to this offense.
We're not talking about two random people on the street.
Put this situation in a professional setting and see how you feel if your company president (of which you have aspirations to be a part of senior management, and not a blue-collar worker) refers to you as a 'little boy' (and you're in you're 40's) I suppose if it's a male company president in his late 80's he might be able to get away with it. Assume the company president of the company is female, and refers to you as a 'little boy'.
Fact is male candidates don't get the same disrespect. It's never about sexual characteristics, as long as it's a man.
I agree with Cap on this. I noticed "chick, vagina, and breast remarks but I was actually waiting to see if any of the people who were so concerned about racism and Obama would take the lead on this.
Cap makes her point by asking if referring to Biden. But I do not think that Biden is a good choice because the only thing Biden and Palin have in common is the VP slots.
I would say that a more appropritate comparison is terminology used to refer to Obama (as a minority group member) and ask what kind of derogatory terms would "passed by" in such a way.
I am not going to suggest a list of terms that might be equivalent to "chick" in blatant disregard for the person's dignity but rather suggest that if you think of a few, and perhaps you may consider terms such as chick, and having a vagina as inappropriate.
__________________
Peter
After all, diamonds are a girl's best friend…
For the record, I've made lots of derogatory comments about Biden over the past few months. On this thread I said he reminds people of the crazy uncle who yells at referees at kids' soccer games. On other threads I've taken note of his multiple cosmetic procedures.
I know it's not the equivalent of calling Sarah Palin a "chick," but it is criticism that's male- and perhaps even age-specific.
I understand where Cappy is coming from on this one. She's right, it's hard to fathom--unless you are one--the subtle and not-so-subtle misogyny that comes out of people's mouths (both women and men) when it comes to discussing the merits or lack thereof a woman in power.
Example--I'm a physician, same as my male peers, right? In residency, I routinely had patients calling me by my first name w/o being invited to do so. The last straw was when a 50-something patient emailed me, addressed me as "Tina", and asked for the contact info for "Doctor R", my male colleague and co-resident.
When I pointed out to him in a future encounter that our professional relationship was jeopardized by this familiarity and lack of respect, he was appropriately apologetic, but he didn't even realize that he had done this until I pointed it out.
Well, we only got the vote, what, a hundred plus years ago? Banned winkie....
Well I held back on my original retort where I believe Mark57 said something in another thread to the effect that she was picked for the size of her breasts. Can't say I've heard similar derogatory comments about the male candidates.
Use all the derogatory, non-sexist terms you want. Asshole whould be fine. At least Patricia referred to her as that 'woman'.
I'm not defending her. I don't like when sexist terms are used to describe women. I could accept being called a 'chick' by a close friend...if a work collegue / supervisor called me or one of my female co-workers a 'chick' it would be totally inappropriate. Try calling your supervisor a chick.
again, my irritation has nothing to do which side of the political spectrum she's on. It pissed me off on the Hillary threads too. All of sudden we have a women candidate and there are videos of Hillary and Obama doing the 'nasty'.
We're not talking about two random people on the street.
Put this situation in a professional setting and see how you feel if your company president (of which you have aspirations to be a part of senior management, and not a blue-collar worker) refers to you as a 'little boy' (and you're in you're 40's) I suppose if it's a male company president in his late 80's he might be able to get away with it. Assume the company president of the company is female, and refers to you as a 'little boy'.
Fact is male candidates don't get the same disrespect. It's never about sexual characteristics, as long as it's a man.
agree, cap. I made similar posts in Veepstakes and in the "getting this out of the way" thread - the only responses I got were basically calling my post out as: "bullshit."
For the record, I've made lots of derogatory comments about Biden over the past few months. On this thread I said he reminds people of the crazy uncle who yells at referees at kids' soccer games. On other threads I've taken note of his multiple cosmetic procedures.
I know it's not the equivalent of calling Sarah Palin a "chick," but it is criticism that's male- and perhaps even age-specific.
Commendable insults, but not quite on the same plane.
I'm not saying we should deny that the candidate is male or female or make references to their sex, or deny that their sex is an issue.
What I have issue with is that the female candidates are sexualized and/or belittled with references that are uniquely demeaning to females. Or as Tina explained, just not given the same general respect as males.
agree, cap. I made similar posts in Veepstakes and in the "getting this out of the way" thread - the only responses I got were basically calling my post out as: "bullshit."
Good post
I think that's where my initial 'pissed-offness' was stoked, but I was on vaction and had other fires to fuel, so I never got around to responding to it.
I'm not so sure I buy the "pretend it's you in person"/ "pretend it's your boss" thing. We all say pretty extreme things on here that of course we'd never say to our bosses or to these people in person.
I wonder about men being immune. How many sex-related Bill Clinton jokes have there been on here? Respect? The man was sitting President, but he hasn't made a single political move in nearly ten years that hasn't been shaded by his exagerrated "sexual appetite". Hell, I just wrote a sex joke involving him myself the other day.
I suppose my main point is that MOST of these "celebrity" people (politicians, athletes, movie stars, etc.) get rude, over-the-top insults all the time... but from people who will never see them face to face.
I agree with you in terms of day-to-day life, person-to-person interaction, etc. I just wonder if by entering the national spotlight, she's going to enter the realm of "not quite human"... she's 'super-real', a personality rather than a person... a tool, a symbol... and so defending her as if she's a co-worker (hell, even a fellow woman) might be a very difficult, and quite possibly a superfluous, job.
I agree with Cap's point, and I agree that the Biden stuff I mentioned wasn't equivalent (which I acknowledged).
This race is going into uncharted political territory in many ways.
Conservative media -- the right-wing smear machine -- have traditionally gone after the manhood of Democratic candidates. Two recent examples:
* Kerry was a gigolo who'd fabricated his combat heroics and awarded himself Purple Hearts for minor self-inflicted wounds.
* Edwards was "the Breck girl."
With Obama, it's harder to hit on the manhood thing, because black men traditionally have been feared for their hypersexuality.
So they've taken to calling him an empty suit, which plays well with those who want to believe black men get preferential treatment over whites. It also invokes postbellum carpetbagger imagery, where the freed slave buys up prime Southern real estate as a front man for unscrupulous Northern speculators.
It's subtle, and most voters wouldn't even know those images are in play, but it reaches the intended audience while still avoiding the dreaded charge of "playing the race card."
With Hillary Clinton, the sexism came out in remarks like the one Chris Matthews made about how she's only the frontrunner because her husband cheated on her. Really, it was no more sexist than the right-wing smears against Kerry and Edwards, but it came off differently.
When you go after a guy's manhood, it's just smash-mouth politics, and if he doesn't turn around and kick you in the nuts for saying it, then maybe he isn't much of a man after all. But when you go after a woman as being unworthy of the attention she's getting, it's an insult to all women.
Fortunately for Hillary, the insults stopped when conservatives realized they needed her to stay in the race to hurt Obama ahead of the general. So now they're pretending to be offended by the horrible sexism of the primary campaign. If she were the frontrunner, Fox News would be treating every statement she made as a product of hormonal imbalance.
But Palin changes this race for reasons that go beyond gender. The Obama campaign has been working hard since 2004 (the "awesome God" line in his keynote address at the DNC) to make him appealing to religious conservatives, or at least to neutralize the religion issue before it arises.
Those conservatives weren't going to vote for Obama, or any other pro-choice politician, but McCain wasn't getting them worked up either. So it looked like religion and other social issues were off the table ... until McCain picked Palin.
Now Obama and Biden aren't just treading around the potential for sexism; any number of policy questions directed at Palin can (and will) be construed as an attack on her religion.
She's what we used to call a "twofer" -- she brings gender and religion into play in this campaign.
Republicans still have to be careful to avoid charges of racism, but that pales (pun intended) compared to the minefields Democrats are now walking through.
I'm not so sure I buy the "pretend it's you in person"/ "pretend it's your boss" thing. We all say pretty extreme things on here that of course we'd never say to our bosses or to these people in person.
I wonder about men being immune. How many sex-related Bill Clinton jokes have there been on here? Respect? The man was sitting President, but he hasn't made a single political move in nearly ten years that hasn't been shaded by his exagerrated "sexual appetite". Hell, I just wrote a sex joke involving him myself the other day.
I suppose my main point is that MOST of these "celebrity" people (politicians, athletes, movie stars, etc.) get rude, over-the-top insults all the time... but from people who will never see them face to face.
I agree with you in terms of day-to-day life, person-to-person interaction, etc. I just wonder if by entering the national spotlight, she's going to enter the realm of "not quite human"... she's 'super-real', a personality rather than a person... a tool, a symbol... and so defending her as if she's a co-worker (hell, even a fellow woman) might be a very difficult, and quite possibly a superfluous, job.
Clinton was a known womanizer, well before the famous Monica incident. You think Palin would've been picked for VP, much less elected govenor, if she had 5 different fathers of each of her children or was a known whore? More likely than not, they probably would've just joked about it and elected her for two terms of president as well.
Politicians aren't above criticism or ridicule or investigations. While they do have some celebrity status, they (technically) are providing a more serious service than the entertainment business or athletics.
Do you have anything that will offend you because it affects the core of your beliefs? Not because you know the person face to face, but perhaps because you can relate to the situation and your own life's pursuits?
Asked if Ms. Palin will be able to judge the demands of the vice-presidency with her complicated family life, Mr. Schmidt said, “She’s been a very effective governor and again I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”
So true.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
How do you begin your public examination by presenting yourself as a proud mother of 5, a mother who has dealt with the temptation of abortion, a mother who has a daughter who is pregnant, a "family values" advocate... and not be asked about the impact your family might have?
It seems that 2/3 of her "qualifications" are directly related to challenges (and supposed victories) with her family.
Very seldom (ever?) does a man present himself as a father first, and bring his children up in every interview. Perhaps issues may come up, but as his first impression? Never. "World's Best Dad! Please vote for me!"
I just realized that I've fallen prey to the GOP propoganda machine: I've been distracted by arguments of sexism.
Here I am defending myself as if I'm being sexist... talking about whether or not this or that is sexist, etc...
When in reality the pure fact of the matter is that she's not qualified for such a high office, woman, chick, man, whore or whatever else you call her.
Linear Mode
