Palin Rejects 31% of Stimulus $$$

[downwardspiral 0]

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

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[idrankwhat 0]

I'm running short on time so I only skimmed the article. I think the arguments against accepting the aid are well crafted, and quite possibly sincere. However, when Alaska starts turning away Federal funds it's likely either a sign of the Apocalypse or more likely, political opportunism.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

I'm running short on time so I only skimmed the article. I think the arguments against accepting the aid are well crafted, and quite possibly sincere. However, when Alaska starts turning away Federal funds it's likely either a sign of the Apocalypse or more likely, political opportunism.

Alaska gets the highest per-capita federal spending of any of the 50 states, and get the highest return ($1.83) of any of the 50 states for every tax dollar sent to Washington. Alaska has never in the past shown any reluctance to ask for more.

I have to agree on "political opportunism"

[billvon 2,400]

Good for her. Perhaps this will be the beginning of her "turning over a new leaf" so to speak.

[idrankwhat 0]

See? "Change" IS coming! Another campaign promise delivered by Obama

[marks2065 0]

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

Quote

I wish she would have sent it all back, but why send it back if the people of Alaska are going to have to pay for it? If they have to pay for the bill they should get some of the benifits of the bill. Palin seems to be accepting the money that would actually promote jobs and infrastructure building and not promoting wastefull spending.

[billvon 2,400]

> If they have to pay for the bill they should get some of the
>benifits of the bill.

Hence the reasoning for every single political money grab in the past 200 years. I'll remember you support that sort of thing.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

> If they have to pay for the bill they should get some of the
>benifits of the bill.

Hence the reasoning for every single political money grab in the past 200 years. I'll remember you support that sort of thing.

Quote

I don't agree with this pork spending piece of shit they call a stimulus bill and wish they never passed it. The bill has been passed, the money will be spent, and all of us will pay for it dearly, but if a state doesn't take the money and use it congress will just redirect it somewere else. This will leave that state with their portion of the bill to pay and no results for the money they had to pay for this bill. It would be bad for the state as a hole and irresponsible of the governor to do that to its people.

The best thing would be for all the states to send the money back, but we know most states(especially the blue states) will spend the money and take what ever is left by other states.

[billvon 2,400]

>It would be bad for the state as a hole and irresponsible of the governor
>to do that to its people.

Like I said, that attitude has been the reason that every politician from John Calhoun in the 1810's to today. "If people's taxes are paying for X anyway, why can't my constituents get some of that government cheese?"

And that's a valid attitude. But it's also the reason we spend so much money.

(BTW while Alaska surely isn't as developed as the rest of the US, it's still a beautiful state. It's not a 'hole!')

> but we know most states(especially the blue states) will spend
>the money and take what ever is left by other states.

?? The red states take in more than they pay in taxes; the blue states pay more in taxes than they take in. To put it another way, the working blue states pay for the red state's welfare.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>It would be bad for the state as a hole and irresponsible of the governor
>to do that to its people.

Like I said, that attitude has been the reason that every politician from John Calhoun in the 1810's to today. "If people's taxes are paying for X anyway, why can't my constituents get some of that government cheese?"

Quote

I here the red states say no to funds from the porkulus but not the blue states

And that's a valid attitude. But it's also the reason we spend so much money.

(BTW while Alaska surely isn't as developed as the rest of the US, it's still a beautiful state. It's not a 'hole!')

> but we know most states(especially the blue states) will spend
>the money and take what ever is left by other states.

?? The red states take in more than they pay in taxes; the blue states pay more in taxes than they take in. To put it another way, the working blue states pay for the red state's welfare.

[billvon 2,400]

>I here the red states say no to funds from the porkulus but not the blue
>states

You'd be wrong!

=======================
Red States Gobble Up Omnibus Earmarks

March 2, 2009 05:11 PM

If it's budget time, it's good to be a red state. And it's very good to be Mississippi.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, Mississippi has won the earmark contest in the omnibus budget package.

Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran led his colleagues by raking in more than $470 million in 204 earmarks. Mississippi's junior Republican, Roger Wicker, pulled in more than $390 million. The totals can't be added together because the figure includes earmarks each received solo and with others, so the same earmark could be in both senators' column. Cochran, on his own, pulled in roughly $76 million and Wicker brought home $4 million.

. . .

Rural and small-state voters were the big winners on an absolute and on a per capita basis, even though it was big states and urban areas that have delivered Congress and the White House to Democrats. Of the top ten earmarking senators, only Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.; $77 million solo; $235 combined), represents a large state and only three of the top ten are blue states. In the top 20, only six blue states are represented.

=======================

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I'm running short on time so I only skimmed the article. I think the arguments against accepting the aid are well crafted, and quite possibly sincere. However, when Alaska starts turning away Federal funds it's likely either a sign of the Apocalypse or more likely, political opportunism.

She is most certainly grandstanding and setting herself up for a run at the Oval Office in 2012. However I do feel her moves are sincere.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[riddler 0]

Quote

I do feel her moves are sincere.

I'm sure she sincerely disagrees with the stimulus plan, which is why she only took 2/3 of the money.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

I do feel her moves are sincere.

I'm sure she sincerely disagrees with the stimulus plan, which is why she only took 2/3 of the money.

Well, a bit OVER 2/3.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[downwardspiral 0]

Want to elaborate on this or are you just being hopefull?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

> If they have to pay for the bill they should get some of the
>benifits of the bill.

Hence the reasoning for every single political money grab in the past 200 years. I'll remember you support that sort of thing.

Quote

I don't agree with this pork spending piece of shit they call a stimulus bill and wish they never passed it. The bill has been passed, the money will be spent, and all of us will pay for it dearly, but if a state doesn't take the money and use it congress will just redirect it somewere else. This will leave that state with their portion of the bill to pay and no results for the money they had to pay for this bill. It would be bad for the state as a hole and irresponsible of the governor to do that to its people.

The best thing would be for all the states to send the money back, but we know most states(especially the blue states) will spend the money and take what ever is left by other states.

HISTORY (which doesn't appear to be one of your strengths) shows that RED states on average take rather more of federal tax dollars than blue states. The RED states are the welfare states.

Even if Alaska turns down ALL of the stimulus money it will STILL be getting more tax money back than it sends to Washington.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Want to elaborate on this or are you just being hopefull?

100% - 31% = 69%

69% > 2/3

See how easy that was?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[downwardspiral 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[marks2065 0]

HISTORY (which doesn't appear to be one of your strengths) shows that RED states on average take rather more of federal tax dollars than blue states. The RED states are the welfare states.

Even if Alaska turns down ALL of the stimulus money it will STILL be getting more tax money back than it sends to Washington.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I here the red states say no to funds from the porkulus but not the blue
>states

You'd be wrong!

Quote

wrong? I didn't say red states weren't taking the money, I said only red states are saying no to some of the money.

• Quote

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

HISTORY (which doesn't appear to be one of your strengths) shows that RED states on average take rather more of federal tax dollars than blue states. The RED states are the welfare states.

Even if Alaska turns down ALL of the stimulus money it will STILL be getting more tax money back than it sends to Washington.

Quote

Alaska is one of(if not) the most valuable natural resource state. Alaska could be a very profitable state if they could access the oil, gas and other resources. it is the tree hugger mantality that causes us to have to give money to alaska. Other states in the west like the dakotas and wyoming could also us the money generated from natural resources.

Other red states produce alot of the food you eat. many of the red states have a lower population but do or could produce alot more if not for the restrictions on them.

[champu 1]

Do the figures for "sponging" include money flowing into the state through the DoD, NPS, etc?

I'm curious because some red states like Utah and Alaska (and also "red regions" of otherwise blue states like most of California) have a lot of national parks, monuments, and military bases. One could argue that although the dollars are physically going to the state, it's really a case of the federal government spending money on itself.

[billvon 2,400]

>Alaska is one of(if not) the most valuable natural resource state.

Yep. In fact they have so much in the way of natural resources that they mail a check to every resident once a year with their share of the cut. Yet they are still one of the biggest welfare states in the country.

Palin is doing a great job soaking the rest of the US to pay for that red state's welfare, I guess.

>Alaska could be a very profitable state if they could access the oil, gas
>and other resources.

They ARE a profitable state; that's why they give their residents free money every year. They're just greedy, and want as much pork as they can possibly get. (True of most states.)

Which, according to you, is just common sense. That's fine. I just hope you don't contradict yourself when it comes to other welfare plans.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Alaska is one of(if not) the most valuable natural resource state.

Yep. In fact they have so much in the way of natural resources that they mail a check to every resident once a year with their share of the cut. Yet they are still one of the biggest welfare states in the country.

Palin is doing a great job soaking the rest of the US to pay for that red state's welfare, I guess.

>Alaska could be a very profitable state if they could access the oil, gas
>and other resources.

They ARE a profitable state; that's why they give their residents free money every year. They're just greedy, and want as much pork as they can possibly get. (True of most states.)

Which, according to you, is just common sense. That's fine. I just hope you don't contradict yourself when it comes to other welfare plans.

Some Alaska facts since there seem to be some wild ass assumptions going around-

Alaska is 2.2 times the size of texas. If it was to cut its self in half Texas would be the 3rd largest state. Alaska is also one of the most underpopulated states. 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.

A lot of Alaskan residence can no longer work. With more and more of Alaska being labeled as a "National Monument" "Park", "Wild life preserve" or "Rain forest" (Tongas National forest, the south eastern pan handle, is a rain forest the size of NY state, and therefore, shut down to pretty much any industry but tourism) most of the jobs have left Alaska. The waters are even starting to be fished out by Canadians and Japanese. Starting in 1990 (approx.) King salmon tags had to be issued out similar to deer tags to control the take. Also, Alaska has some of the largest indian reservations in the US. With the population of the state so low and spread out, the indians can't sustain themselves with casinos.

As for the money each alaskan get, the budget works like this-
The state spends a year pumping oil and puts the money in the bank. That is the money the state gets for a budget the following year. As the money sits there waiting to get spent, it collects interest that gets divided up among the residents in the form of a permanent fund. In terms of government, it really isn't that much money.

So yes, she will take what she can get and she will not take the bait and commit to more than she can afford with all the strings attached to the money. Alaska has some unique issues but it also has a balanced budget and this is one alaskan who is glad to see that my state is not turning into another California. I think she is doing a great job, other than my town is still waiting for its bridge.

Blue skies, Jim

P.S. Change we can believe in is "pork" is now called "stimulus."

"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

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

>Alaska is one of(if not) the most valuable natural resource state.

Yep. In fact they have so much in the way of natural resources that they mail a check to every resident once a year with their share of the cut. Yet they are still one of the biggest welfare states in the country.

Palin is doing a great job soaking the rest of the US to pay for that red state's welfare, I guess.

>Alaska could be a very profitable state if they could access the oil, gas
>and other resources.

They ARE a profitable state; that's why they give their residents free money every year. They're just greedy, and want as much pork as they can possibly get. (True of most states.)

Which, according to you, is just common sense. That's fine. I just hope you don't contradict yourself when it comes to other welfare plans.

Some Alaska facts since there seem to be some wild ass assumptions going around-

Alaska is 2.2 times the size of texas. If it was to cut its self in half Texas would be the 3rd largest state. Alaska is also one of the most underpopulated states. 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.

A lot of Alaskan residence can no longer work. With more and more of Alaska being labeled as a "National Monument" "Park", "Wild life preserve" or "Rain forest" (Tongas National forest, the south eastern pan handle, is a rain forest the size of NY state, and therefore, shut down to pretty much any industry but tourism) most of the jobs have left Alaska. The waters are even starting to be fished out by Canadians and Japanese. Starting in 1990 (approx.) King salmon tags had to be issued out similar to deer tags to control the take. Also, Alaska has some of the largest indian reservations in the US. With the population of the state so low and spread out, the indians can't sustain themselves with casinos.

As for the money each alaskan get, the budget works like this-
The state spends a year pumping oil and puts the money in the bank. That is the money the state gets for a budget the following year. As the money sits there waiting to get spent, it collects interest that gets divided up among the residents in the form of a permanent fund. In terms of government, it really isn't that much money.

So yes, she will take what she can get and she will not take the bait and commit to more than she can afford with all the strings attached to the money. Alaska has some unique issues but it also has a balanced budget and this is one alaskan who is glad to see that my state is not turning into another California. I think she is doing a great job, other than my town is still waiting for its bridge.

Blue skies, Jim

Quote

thanks for the reply. I'm glad that someone from alaska has spoken to those that really don't understand what is happening in alaska. bilvon is in his Obama koolaid drunken state and really doesn't understand what the tree huggers are doing to the alaskan economy. everyone around alaska robs them of everything close to the borders but the people of alaska can't use but only a small portion of the resources available. the politics is going to bankrupt the state and without the money from the government they would definately fail.

P.S. Change we can believe in is "pork" is now called "stimulus."