Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Still a tax. Just a different name.


    Then what was it?
    It's not a tax. The stat of Alaska sells it 's oil rights to the oil companies. Just like you sell your services to your employer. Just like the farmer sells his goods. In this case, the state gets paid to let the oil companies take the oil.

    Leave a comment:


  • MTKROUSH
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Still a tax. Just a different name.


    Then what was it?
    Not necessarily a tax. If the State, it dont matter what State, had a plan in place to use its budget surplus to assist the people that's not necessarily a tax. If the prices went up, and revenues from oil coming into the state treasury also increased that's not a Windfall Profits tax. That's just simple economics. Look at your own budget. If you make more money. You will also in turn pay in more in Income taxes. Is that saying the regular increase in your income taxes because you got a raise is a Windfall Profits tax?

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    It's not a rationalization It's a fact

    http://www.earthrights.net/docs/oilrent.html
    Still a tax. Just a different name.

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    So when World oil prices went up, Alaska benefited. That should be easy for even a liberal to figure out. THERE WAS NO TAX ON WINDFALL PROFITS.
    Then what was it?

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    That is in addition to the revenues her constituents received from the Oil Savings Acct.

    Rationalize it all you want, but it is a tax by any other name.
    It's not a rationalization It's a fact

    http://www.earthrights.net/docs/oilrent.html

    The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole. Citizen dividend checks are distributed every year in Alaska out of the interest payments to an oil royalties deposit account called the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) created in 1976 after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The APF is a public trust fund - a diversified stock, bond and real estate portfolio - into which are deposited the oil royalties received from the corporations which extract the oil from the lands of Alaska. The first citizen dividend check from the interest of the APF was issued in 1982 and was for $1000 per every person for everyone in Alaska who had resided in the state for at least one year. Annual citizen dividends have been issued every year since then, for a total of more than $23,000 per person.

    Alaska relies on oil for about 80 percent of its revenue and has no sales or income tax. Alaska state government is mandated to invest 25% of its oil revenue into the APF while the other 75% of oil royalty revenue is dispersed to other government funds to finance education, infrastructure and social services. If 100% of Alaska's oil royalties had been deposited into the APF, it is conceivable that the CD this year could have been about $4,400 or $17,600 for a family of four. But then there would have been no funds for roads, education and other public services and no funds available to run the state legislature - a libertarian dream fulfillment or a social and economic disaster, which one we will never know. If state services were to have been maintained while 100% of oil royalties were deposited in the APF, there would of course have been the need for income, sales and other taxes on wages and production.
    So when World oil prices went up, Alaska benefited. That should be easy for even a liberal to figure out. THERE WAS NO TAX ON WINDFALL PROFITS.

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    That we do, absolutely no question, but its finite and some people here are realising that there is an end. We are looking now into constructing nuclear power stations in both Alberta and Saskatchewan which are the 2 main oil and gas producers. Probably quite a ways off yet, but its a start.



    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Canada sures owes a huge segment of their economy to dinosaur dung, huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    It wasn't a windfall profits tax. It was a $1,200 credit because of the windfall profits Alaska made off of the high price of oil.

    Sarah Palin
    That is in addition to the revenues her constituents received from the Oil Savings Acct.

    Rationalize it all you want, but it is a tax by any other name.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    You'll have to ask Sarah Palin. She's the only one whose managed to a pass windfall profits tax on oil.
    It wasn't a windfall profits tax. It was a $1,200 credit because of the windfall profits Alaska made off of the high price of oil.

    Sarah Palin

    In response to high oil and gas prices, and the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[62] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send each Alaskan $1,200 from the windfall surplus resulting from high oil prices.[63]

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Originally posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Interesting link Chief. Like I've said in several posts, a solution can be found if we get off our butts and decide to quit relying on 100 million year old dinosaur sh*t to power our lives
    Canada sures owes a huge segment of their economy to dinosaur dung, huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    Originally posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Interesting link Chief. Like I've said in several posts, a solution can be found if we get off our butts and decide to quit relying on 100 million year old dinosaur sh*t to power our lives
    I thought it was interesting (and possibly promising), as well. At least it's a start, it's just getting us (and our politicans) off our butts, like you say.

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    Interesting link Chief. Like I've said in several posts, a solution can be found if we get off our butts and decide to quit relying on 100 million year old dinosaur sh*t to power our lives


    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Didn't read it all the way through... don't know how reliable the source is.

    It's a bit off topic, so i'll just post the link.

    http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by Catch22 View Post
    I've asked this before, and maybe you have a possible answer. What do we do with the half-spent fuel rods once we get all the energy we can out of them?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more alternative energy ideas, including nuclear. What I'm not for is finding another mountain to bury spent nuclear fuel rods for 10,000 years while they decompose. Our efficiency in nuclear energy has a lot to be desired in my book.
    Didn't read it all the way through... don't know how reliable the source is.

    It's a bit off topic, so i'll just post the link.

    http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    Catch22 Its definitely the biggest problem in regards nuclear power. A possible solution is to drill through the earths outer crust and inject them down into the magma. It is something thats being studied now in Europe. It may not be the answer, but if money is spent in finding solutions rather than on bloody tax breaks, incentives, stupid senseless wars, political correctness, a solution could be found.
    I think the US is uniquely positioned to be a leader here as in the past you guys have proven that you do have the ability to solve problems if the reason is serious enough. E.g. Materials in WW2, Manhatten Project, Eradication of smallpox and malaria, although the latter you had a lot of international help
    BTW, our efficiency in energy conservation and lifestyles leave a fair bit to be desired too.


    Originally posted by Catch22 View Post
    I've asked this before, and maybe you have a possible answer. What do we do with the half-spent fuel rods once we get all the energy we can out of them?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more alternative energy ideas, including nuclear. What I'm not for is finding another mountain to bury spent nuclear fuel rods for 10,000 years while they decompose. Our efficiency in nuclear energy has a lot to be desired in my book.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    Originally posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Plain and simple, the answer is alternative energy sources. Wind, Solar, Hydro will answer a fraction of this, but AT THIS POINT IN TIME only nuclear will provide any real alternative
    I've asked this before, and maybe you have a possible answer. What do we do with the half-spent fuel rods once we get all the energy we can out of them?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more alternative energy ideas, including nuclear. What I'm not for is finding another mountain to bury spent nuclear fuel rods for 10,000 years while they decompose. Our efficiency in nuclear energy has a lot to be desired in my book.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Gutless response.
    Pointless answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    More oil is not the answer!

    Actually, the “simple fact” is more oil is the solution. Private and government estimates all agree oil will make up 75% to 80% of our energy needs for the next 50 years at least. To refuse to drill for the 136 billion barrels we have available borders on criminal. More oil means lower prices. If we can get oil down to $80 a barrel or so it will work like a huge tax cut, especially for the poor who’ve been hit hardest by the Democrats’ failed energy policies. Lower oil prices will stimulate the economy, weaken inflation and make us and our allies around the world more secure. Reid’s poisonous words do nothing to move the country forward.

    But they do give voters an idea of what’s to come if Democrats keep
    Congress and win the White House.

    I don't disagree with the statement made that the so called govt and industry gurus think that more oil is the answer. I do disagree with the validity of these remarks. If someone found an "Elephant Play" now, it could be brought online relatively cheaply and quickly, all the damn public would do is crank up their thermostats in winter, get the Escalade or Navigator out of the garage and go right back to their normal habits. Plain and simple, the answer is alternative energy sources. Wind, Solar, Hydro will answer a fraction of this, but AT THIS POINT IN TIME only nuclear will provide any real alternative. Make a focus in this election on cutting back on fossil fuels and finding a viable alternative. North America went down this road once and learned absolutely SFA. Now maybe somebody will think twice.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X