DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 We had a one party government that theoretically was a conservative party Yeah, how'd that work out With the caveat that "conservative" is NOT a comparative... Well, they looked conservative next to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 We had a one party government that theoretically was a conservative party Yeah, how'd that work out How about we do this............ We split the country in 2 geographically, we let the libs choose which half they want. We put the politically conservative in one part and the libs in the other. Form 2 countries. Each country can continue wit the same constitution and form of government. The righties will take the military and agree to defend the lefties. The lefties can provide free health care and the full range of entitlements and special exceptions for all those that ask. The lefties can set taxation at whatever levels they see fit and take the unions and the ACLU and the liberal justices too. The righties will proceed with traditional conservative values and principles. We can split the national debt in two. I wish the lefties the best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 How about we do this............ We split the country in 2 geographically, we let the libs choose which half they want. We put the politically conservative in one part and the libs in the other. Form 2 countries. Each country can continue wit the same constitution and form of government. The righties will take the military and agree to defend the lefties. The lefties can provide free health care and the full range of entitlements and special exceptions for all those that ask. The lefties can set taxation at whatever levels they see fit and take the unions and the ACLU and the liberal justices too. The righties will proceed with traditional conservative values and principles. We can split the national debt in two. I wish the lefties the best of luck. We already have a welfare system in place where states like IL, CA, NYS, MA pay more to the gov't then they get back... All for giving the welfare queen red states like AK and the Inter-Mountain West a leg up. Hey, now that they got that leg-up (rural powerfication/information, infrastructure, what not)... Those welfare queen red state can start paying up by paying more taxes. Why do you think those red states are trying to go in the opposite direction? Like a bunch of buddies buying rounds at a bar, there are always the deadbeats that don't buy a round and say right before they are to buy a round: "Gotta go, the wife is calling!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 We already have a welfare system in place where states like IL, CA, NYS, MA pay more to the gov't then they get back... All for giving the welfare queen red states like AK and the Inter-Mountain West a leg up. Hey, now that they got that leg-up (rural powerfication/information, infrastructure, what not)... Those welfare queen red state can start paying up by paying more taxes. Why do you think those red states are trying to go in the opposite direction? Like a bunch of buddies buying rounds at a bar, there are always the deadbeats that don't buy a round and say right before they are to buy a round: "Gotta go, the wife is calling!" That argument doesn't get any more lucid the more you repeat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 That argument doesn't get any more lucid the more you repeat it. Tell yourself another lie. If I lived in a welfare queen state I wouldn't want to hear it either. Maybe it is time to buy a round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 We already have a welfare system in place where states like IL, CA, NYS, MA pay more to the gov't then they get back... All for giving the welfare queen red states like AK and the Inter-Mountain West a leg up. Hey, now that they got that leg-up (rural powerfication/information, infrastructure, what not)... Those welfare queen red state can start paying up by paying more taxes. Why do you think those red states are trying to go in the opposite direction? Like a bunch of buddies buying rounds at a bar, there are always the deadbeats that don't buy a round and say right before they are to buy a round: "Gotta go, the wife is calling!" Alaska gets it's money from oil and fish IT owns, and would have more if the Feds got there stinking nose out of this state. We can do just fine without Federal "help" in fact I wish they they would just leave us alone. Welfare Queen? You have got to be kidding. What can Illinois offer but corrupt politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 We already have a welfare system in place where states like IL, CA, NYS, MA pay more to the gov't then they get back... All for giving the welfare queen red states like AK and the Inter-Mountain West a leg up. Hey, now that they got that leg-up (rural powerfication/information, infrastructure, what not)... Those welfare queen red state can start paying up by paying more taxes. Why do you think those red states are trying to go in the opposite direction? Like a bunch of buddies buying rounds at a bar, there are always the deadbeats that don't buy a round and say right before they are to buy a round: "Gotta go, the wife is calling!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I would urge people to at least diversify some of those funds into something tangible like Real Estate, precious metals or at least convert some of it into foreign currencies, preferably where there is growth. I am working on the 3 Fs. Food, Fuel and Firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Tell yourself another lie. If I lived in a welfare queen state I wouldn't want to hear it either. Maybe it is time to buy a round. Another stupid and totally unsurprising response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I am working on the 3 Fs. Food, Fuel and Firearms. What about the 3 Ps? Porn, Pot, and Potato Chips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Another stupid and totally unsurprising response. Hate to agree with him, but the populous states do contribute more to the Fed treasury than they take out. I think that's what he's referring to. Never mind the "non-tax" subsidies that flow to those states for providing services in rural areas, like roads, telecommunications and electricity. No way tjose projects would be economically viable without subsidies from the populated states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Hate to agree with him, but the populous states do contribute more to the Fed treasury than they take out. I think that's what he's referring to. Never mind the "non-tax" subsidies that flow to those states for providing services in rural areas, like roads, telecommunications and electricity. No way tjose projects would be economically viable without subsidies from the populated states. No ****, Sherlock. That's not the point at all. If the federal government didn't redistribute tax money the way they do, there would be little reason to give them any. Hey California, thanks for sending in $400,000,000,000.00. Now here's $400,000,000,000.00 in projects we're authorizing - minus our significant cut. That would be a really good system - though it would be right in the liberal wheelhouse. Sorry Alaska/Montana/Wyoming - you get enough to build 14 miles of road each. Choose carefully. But hey, we're really glad our share allowed us all these sweet golden fixtures! The only reason Eric continues to repeat his ridiculous point is he and nozzle thinks it bothers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Hate to agree with him, but the populous states do contribute more to the Fed treasury than they take out. I think that's what he's referring to. Never mind the "non-tax" subsidies that flow to those states for providing services in rural areas, like roads, telecommunications and electricity. No way tjose projects would be economically viable without subsidies from the populated states. I don't suppose you ever noticed the massive federal land ownership in less populated states, land that is forever off the local tax rolls? If you don't like sending Federal money to states like Alaska, fine but don't expect locals to bear the burden of being America's land bank. The lost property tax from a Federal park like Denali alone would cover the "warfare payments" you think the Fed "gives". People from the east never seem to grasp the concept of what a 800 pound gorilla the Fed can be. Keep your "subsidies" and vacation in whatever national parks happen to be in New Jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Another round of bailouts quietly in the works? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business...zbSYPuwpuAwwPPw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 I don't suppose you ever noticed the massive federal land ownership in less populated states, land that is forever off the local tax rolls? If you don't like sending Federal money to states like Alaska, fine but don't expect locals to bear the burden of being America's land bank. The lost property tax from a Federal park like Denali alone would cover the "warfare payments" you think the Fed "gives".People from the east never seem to grasp the concept of what a 800 pound gorilla the Fed can be. Keep your "subsidies" and vacation in whatever national parks happen to be in New Jersey Do you honestly think that real estate taxes from a privatized Denali would take care of the fiscal imbalance? Get real. As I said, there are other subsidies that rural states get that flow outside the official fed register. Don't forget that you're blessed to be living in a state where the golden pig should be the appropriate tombstones for the most recent Senator and it's biggest name Congressman. And I like the state parks in NJ & NY quite fine thank you very much to endure a 14 hour flight to see 1 lb mosquitoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 No ****, Sherlock. That's not the point at all. If the federal government didn't redistribute tax money the way they do, there would be little reason to give them any. Hey California, thanks for sending in $400,000,000,000.00. Now here's $400,000,000,000.00 in projects we're authorizing - minus our significant cut. That would be a really good system - though it would be right in the liberal wheelhouse. Sorry Alaska/Montana/Wyoming - you get enough to build 14 miles of road each. Choose carefully. But hey, we're really glad our share allowed us all these sweet golden fixtures! The only reason Eric continues to repeat his ridiculous point is he and nozzle thinks it bothers me. Well, yeah that's the goal of the federal government and you can file it into the social policy section of the ledger. The point being that the main asset of the populous states is its people and the productivity that comes out of them and the resultant taxation. And I don't begrudge the rural states for getting more support than they generate because it benefits the nation as a whole. What I do find ironic is that usually people from those states are the most vocal about tax rates, when I know that a big reason for my taxes being sky high is that my state is a net giver into the pie and they are net takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 The budget deficit is $14 Trillion? Not yet. But give Obama and Nancy another month and we might get there. Funny how all the Reagan haters who were still bitching about his budget 20 years later have been so quiet lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 What a mess. the most "recent " U.S senator from Alaska is Mark Begich a liberal former mayor of Anchorage who doesn't have the juice in D.C. to pull a free postage stamp. Don Young is the biggest name congressman because he is the only one [it goes by population in the house, remember?]Maybe you don't feel the 14 hr flight [must have been a hell of a headwind-takes me 4 from Chicago] is worth it but thousands of people do and get to enjoy millions of acres of Federal land for free. I believe that Begich is the current Senator. The most "recent" one is the guy for whom an airport is named. Just argue with the facts, that's all. And those thousands of people who enjoy that park for "free" should send me a little thank you note for helping make it free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Do you honestly think that real estate taxes from a privatized Denali would take care of the fiscal imbalance? Get real. As I said, there are other subsidies that rural states get that flow outside the official fed register. Don't forget that you're blessed to be living in a state where the golden pig should be the appropriate tombstones for the most recent Senator and it's biggest name Congressman. And I like the state parks in NJ & NY quite fine thank you very much to endure a 14 hour flight to see 1 lb mosquitoes. What a mess. the most "recent " U.S senator from Alaska is Mark Begich a liberal former mayor of Anchorage who doesn't have the juice in D.C. to pull a free postage stamp. Don Young is the biggest name congressman because he is the only one [it goes by population in the house, remember?] Maybe you don't feel the 14 hr flight [must have been a hell of a headwind-takes me 4 from Chicago] is worth it but thousands of people do and get to enjoy millions of acres of Federal land for free. Land that could be producing income for the state of Alaska [resources, development] So when EX sen. Ted Stevens [i am sure thats who you are thinking of in your misinformed post] gets a few bucks for a airport in east nowhere, don't Think Alaska didn't pay for it . She did - with millions of acres in land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 What a mess. the most "recent " U.S senator from Alaska is Mark Begich a liberal former mayor of Anchorage who doesn't have the juice in D.C. to pull a free postage stamp. Don Young is the biggest name congressman because he is the only one [it goes by population in the house, remember?]Maybe you don't feel the 14 hr flight [must have been a hell of a headwind-takes me 4 from Chicago] is worth it but thousands of people do and get to enjoy millions of acres of Federal land for free. Land that could be producing income for the state of Alaska [resources, development] So when EX sen. Ted Stevens [i am sure thats who you are thinking of in your misinformed post] gets a few bucks for a airport in east nowhere, don't Think Alaska didn't pay for it . She did - with millions of acres in land. Ah, the beauty of the argument totally ignoring Stevens' 30+ yr history of massive pork projects for Alaska, because the state paid for it. And where did the state get the money? From taxing natural resources of course, which in Alaskan definition belongs to the state and not federal government. But there's absolutely no problem in holding the hand out for federal subsidies to ensure the flow of those natural resources to the lower 48. Sorry that you don't see the hypocrisy in your position. And yeah, more land should be made available for development in exchange for Alaska paying its fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts