billvon 2,998 #26 March 23, 2009 >At less that 700,000 people for the whole state, if they didn't have federal >funds to help out with infrastructure, they would be taxed out of existence. Again, that would make more sense if the numbers supported it. The permanent fund now has $28 billion in it. In 2008, every resident got $2000 from the government. That's $1.4 billion in welfare sent to its residents. Palin just accepted $642 million from the US government in the latest stimulus package. To put it another way, the money spend on resident welfare could have covered that subsidy several times over. Now, like I said, that's fine. Alaska can do whatever it wants. If it wants to accept federal money while giving its residents over a billion in welfare, great. It's just somewhat hypocritical to then turn around and claim that Alaska is a shining example of self-sufficiency. They could indeed be self sufficient, but have chosen to take US taxpayer money and spend their money on welfare for their residents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #27 March 23, 2009 You can slice it and dice it any way you wish, but the bottom line is that Alaskans ARE the biggest recipients of federal government welfare. And even if the stimulus money is rejected, Alaskans will STILL be the largest recipients. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #28 March 23, 2009 Quote>At less that 700,000 people for the whole state, if they didn't have federal >funds to help out with infrastructure, they would be taxed out of existence. Again, that would make more sense if the numbers supported it. The permanent fund now has $28 billion in it. In 2008, every resident got $2000 from the government. That's $1.4 billion in welfare sent to its residents. Palin just accepted $642 million from the US government in the latest stimulus package. To put it another way, the money spend on resident welfare could have covered that subsidy several times over. Now, like I said, that's fine. Alaska can do whatever it wants. If it wants to accept federal money while giving its residents over a billion in welfare, great. It's just somewhat hypocritical to then turn around and claim that Alaska is a shining example of self-sufficiency. They could indeed be self sufficient, but have chosen to take US taxpayer money and spend their money on welfare for their residents. Damn, I think the Welfare tag on the good people of Alaska is somewhat of a slap in the face. I guess you think of them as a bunch of Hay Seed Hicks. California holds the #1 spot as a Welfare State. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #29 March 23, 2009 >I think the Welfare tag on the good people of Alaska is somewhat >of a slap in the face. ?? Why? They are great people, and they can always refuse the check if they choose to do so. It's not their fault their government sends them welfare checks. >California holds the #1 spot as a Welfare State. Actually we're #41. We give $1.23 back for every $1 we get in federal money. Alaska is #5 - they get $1.82 for every $1 they pay into the federal system. But again, that's life. Alaska can continue to take in far more than they pay; California will keep paying for their welfare. We're good for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 March 24, 2009 .... sorry to be 'slightly' off topic .... but how much did she personally fleece your country for during the recent election? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #31 March 24, 2009 Quote.... sorry to be 'slightly' off topic .... but how much did she personally fleece your country for during the recent election? Well, if you're talking about her and her family's campaign clothing and accoutrements, it would be that amount that was paid for by federal matching funds, reduced by such portion of those expenditures that should be deemed reasonable. The key variable in that formula, of course, is defining "reasonable." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #32 March 24, 2009 Quote.... sorry to be 'slightly' off topic .... but how much did she personally fleece your country for during the recent election? Do you mean fiscally or intellectually? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #33 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote .... sorry to be 'slightly' off topic .... but how much did she personally fleece your country for during the recent election? Do you mean fiscally or intellectually? Good point (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #34 March 24, 2009 Personally fleeced? You, and Andy, do realize her and her family did not keep the clothes right? She left them with the RNC who was suppose to donate the clothing but last I heard the RNC hasn't.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #35 March 24, 2009 I think it's pretty clear she's just doing this to set herself up for her run in 2012. Same as Gov. Jindal down in Louisiana. I can already hear her "You know them folks down in Washington tried to send us all of that pork money. And what did I do? I told them 'no thanks' you betcha! Cause that's what mavericks do..." etc. ad nauseum. The best analogy I've heard so far came from a South Carolina newspaper (I think) who said something to the effect of turning down stimulus money for these reasons is like being poor and turning down a free meal because you demand the money for the meal be spent to pay down your credit card debt. I just think it's sad that Gov. Palin is putting her own 2012 interests ahead of those of the Alaskan people, who could derive a lot of benefit from these funds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #36 March 24, 2009 I do not deny she is grand standing but I have to say your opinion that her decision to refuse the money in order to grand stand is, not only pure speculation, but also without merit considering her her reasoning for refusal is actually responsible. Put simply... Alaska cannot afford to accept that money.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #37 March 25, 2009 Quote I make no bones about being a Palin supporter. Mainly because she's shown herself to be somewhat honest, for a politician(although very opportunistic), and seems to run her government as a moderate. This subject was breached in another thread but I feel it deserves it's very own thread as I am interested in what you good folks have to say about it. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10037536 This is actually funny. She calls the bailout money a "bribe" and then goes to accept 70% of it. Next time someone offers me a $1,000 bribe I guess I will be able to accept $700 of it and still consider myself moral. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #38 March 25, 2009 Your analogy is not a good one. The guy gives you $700 to spend. Then an additional $300 to marry his already pregnant daughter. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #39 March 26, 2009 Quote You can slice it and dice it any way you wish, but the bottom line is that Alaskans ARE the biggest recipients of federal government welfare. And even if the stimulus money is rejected, Alaskans will STILL be the largest recipients. That sounds fair. If the liberals are going to get rid of all of our jobs, then they can pay our way."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #40 March 26, 2009 Quote>I think the Welfare tag on the good people of Alaska is somewhat >of a slap in the face. ?? Why? They are great people, and they can always refuse the check if they choose to do so. It's not their fault their government sends them welfare checks. >California holds the #1 spot as a Welfare State. Actually we're #41. We give $1.23 back for every $1 we get in federal money. Alaska is #5 - they get $1.82 for every $1 they pay into the federal system. But again, that's life. Alaska can continue to take in far more than they pay; California will keep paying for their welfare. We're good for it. It's not california that's paying for it, although it is federal funds. But it is california policy that is causing all the problems. The lunes have figured out that they can enforce policy in Alaska by filing in the 9th Circuit court in california. You did get the "it's your fault" part right. If there was some way we could take the funds right out of California's already depleted piggy bank, you better bet we would."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #41 March 26, 2009 Quote>At less that 700,000 people for the whole state, if they didn't have federal >funds to help out with infrastructure, they would be taxed out of existence. Again, that would make more sense if the numbers supported it. The permanent fund now has $28 billion in it. In 2008, every resident got $2000 from the government. That's $1.4 billion in welfare sent to its residents. Palin just accepted $642 million from the US government in the latest stimulus package. To put it another way, the money spend on resident welfare could have covered that subsidy several times over. Now, like I said, that's fine. Alaska can do whatever it wants. If it wants to accept federal money while giving its residents over a billion in welfare, great. It's just somewhat hypocritical to then turn around and claim that Alaska is a shining example of self-sufficiency. They could indeed be self sufficient, but have chosen to take US taxpayer money and spend their money on welfare for their residents. You must have missed the part when I said 700,000 people trying to build all the infrastructure of a state 2.2 times the size of texas. Imagine a suburb of LA trying to pay for 3 California's while the liberals are taking away all the jobs. I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but if you try, you might be able to."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #42 March 26, 2009 Quote You must have missed the part when I said 700,000 people trying to build all the infrastructure of a state 2.2 times the size of texas. Imagine a suburb of LA trying to pay for 3 California's while the liberals are taking away all the jobs. I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but if you try, you might be able to. Ok, I'm using my imagination. That's three Californias, most of which would consist wilderness/preserves/and national parks. I suppose that if the population density is 2.6 people per square mile, and you placed only 2.6 people in each square mile......yea, you've got a point. Infrastructure costs would be extremely high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #43 March 27, 2009 QuoteQuote You can slice it and dice it any way you wish, but the bottom line is that Alaskans ARE the biggest recipients of federal government welfare. And even if the stimulus money is rejected, Alaskans will STILL be the largest recipients. That sounds fair. If the liberals are going to get rid of all of our jobs, then they can pay our way. Funny man. I think you'll find that the massive job losses of the past few months have been the direct result of unregulated capitalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #44 March 27, 2009 Quote the liberals are taking away all the jobs I always smirk when conservatives that support corporate greed blame the liberals for taking away the jobs. Why don't you ask the heads of the corporations who are taking away the jobs - they are the only people with the power to hire and fire people. Now pardon me while I rant about how gun manufacturers are killing people Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #45 March 27, 2009 >It's not california that's paying for it. . . . Sure we are. We pay more per dollar of federal funding so that some states can suck more federal dollars out of the government. But that's OK; we're happy to do that. >If there was some way we could take the funds right out of California's >already depleted piggy bank, you better bet we would. You're already doing that. But again, we're good for it. Just don't be too upset when the entity handing you money tells you what you can (and can't) do with it. Or you could refuse the money; that would be fine too. >You must have missed the part when I said 700,000 people trying to >build all the infrastructure of a state 2.2 times the size of texas. I think perhaps you should try to drive to Barrow if you think there's any equivalence between the infrastructure in Alaska and in Texas. >Imagine a suburb of LA trying to pay for 3 California's while the liberals >are taking away all the jobs. Easy to imagine. Take Orange County; 3 million people. We take most of Orange County and the rest of the population of California and send them to Alaska. Now we have the same population as Alaska, and all we have to maintain is Orange County. We let the rest of the state disintegrate until it looks like, say, the area outside Barrow. No problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 April 1, 2009 QuoteCalifornia will keep paying for their welfare. We're good for it. I think Cali should worry more about the income tax return IOU's they're giving their residents.... just sayin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #47 April 3, 2009 Quote Quote the liberals are taking away all the jobs I always smirk when conservatives that support corporate greed blame the liberals for taking away the jobs. Why don't you ask the heads of the corporations who are taking away the jobs - they are the only people with the power to hire and fire people. Now pardon me while I rant about how gun manufacturers are killing people I suggest you go back a couple of posts and read the part where I said the 9th circuit court in California, which has jurisdiction in Oregon, Washington and Alaska, has been used by the liberal lunies to block numerous projects in Alaska "to protect the environment". Alaska is about 60% parks, rain forests, and nature preserves. The one industry we are allowed, Tourism, is being put on hold also. Projects that would help us out, such as the "bridge to nowhere" get turned into a national punch line. I think we have a right to be upset about that. Then congress passed a trillion dollars of "Bridge to no wheres"....."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #48 May 1, 2009 >I said only red states are saying no to some of the money. Boy, who could have seen THIS coming? =========== Palin directs agencies to seek stimulus funds By MARK THIESSEN / Associated Press Writer Published: April 28th, 2009 02:23 PM Last Modified: April 29th, 2009 12:10 PM ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has directed state agencies to begin applying for federal stimulus funds after indicating she wouldn't veto legislative approval of more than $900 million available to the state. . . . . Leighow said Tuesday that the message earlier this year that Palin was going to reject stimulus funds was misconstrued. "She's never said she's rejecting anything. She's been consistent we need to hear from the public, thus the legislative hearings," Leighow said. =========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #49 May 1, 2009 Quote>I said only red states are saying no to some of the money. Boy, who could have seen THIS coming? =========== Palin directs agencies to seek stimulus funds By MARK THIESSEN / Associated Press Writer Published: April 28th, 2009 02:23 PM Last Modified: April 29th, 2009 12:10 PM ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has directed state agencies to begin applying for federal stimulus funds after indicating she wouldn't veto legislative approval of more than $900 million available to the state. . . . . Leighow said Tuesday that the message earlier this year that Palin was going to reject stimulus funds was misconstrued. "She's never said she's rejecting anything. She's been consistent we need to hear from the public, thus the legislative hearings," Leighow said. =========== I guess she is just for the stimulus.. after she was against it..... flip flopping like the best of them. I wonder how our deadenders who want her for president will spin this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 May 1, 2009 With all the attention she's still getting 6 MONTHS after the election, the lefties must still be running scared of her in 2012...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
