In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

Q: Comment: The people who gave away your oil with SB-21 are now going to destroy the Alaska economy and hurt Alaska families by raiding the Permanent Fund to pay for the theft of our oil.

These are the simple facts:

1. The money that will be taken from Alaska families will just about equal the corporate welfare subsides the Senate fought to give Big Oil.

2.  The money stolen from Alaska families will hurt the Alaska economy.

3. At current oil prices about $10 billion dollars worth of oil is taken from Alaska every year.  It is tax free.  We only get a royalty.  This is unconstitutional, and is the single biggest reason Alaska has a $4 billion dollar deficit.



The nonsense that we have to destroy the dividend program in order to save it is spin.  It covers up the fact we are giving away our oil, AND paying hundreds of millions in corporate welfare that caused this deficit.

A: Agree
****
Q: Comment: This is really hard. You bargaining with a bully that wants the right to slap on tariffs at any time which would know from experience in softwood lumber would be applied for political reasons rather than reasons of fairness. At the same time, the bully teases you with potential access to a market vital to the present configuration of our economy. It isn't about friendship or partnership - it is avowedly "me first and only me". I don't envy our negotiators and I can only say it heightens my enthusiasm for seeking greater partnership with Europe. There are so many great Americans and great American companies that I really mourn for the loss of friendship the Trump administration implicitly (in our case) represents. With the Mexicans it is explicit.

A: Agree
****
Q: Comment: I am one who disagrees with you.  

Those in society who derive greater financial benefit from it, owe it a greater percentage of their income.

In fact, I would go further, and stratify incomes into the tens of millions (56% on those over $500k, 66% over $5M, 76% over $15M, 86% over $30M - feel free to choose your own numbers here...).  This is not a new idea - top tax brackets in the US in 1945 were 94% over $200k.  

As well, in the booming 50's top tax rates were 91% (in the USA).

A:
Disagree
****