Tony Snow Tells It Like It Is

[Alaska Darin]

It is kind of funny listening to the resident Alaskan argue against government programs.  I'm sure you still cash your Permanent Fund check and drive on the roads others in the lower 48 pay for..

873328[/snapback]

Yeah, I cash my PFD check every year. I also pay more than my share of taxes, thank you very much. If you're not paying $8K per person in your household annually to Uncle Sam, then you're a debtor. About 85% of taxpayers fit that category and I'm not one of them - haven't been for more than a handful of years of my adult life. Of course, during that time I was living on the poverty line while serving in the military.

 

The same can't be said of most Alaskans - in large part because the Fed has created a giant welfare state, but we'll just pretend it's because the people who lived here before statehood weren't hearty and just needed a little help to get by. You know, since all you're actually doing is regurgitating soundbytes. Alaska is a prime example of handouts gone haywire over span.

 

As far as the other lame part of your argument: Alaska has been a state for fewer than 50 years. It also contains fewer than 700,000 people. It only stands to reason that a state that's nearly 200 years younger, is 12 TIMES larger, yet has about one/thirtieth the population of New York would get some assistance on Constitutionally mandated infrastructure (which, if you must know, the Fed hasn't lived up to it's end of the statehood agreement). You know, since we are supplying 88 THOUSAND barrels of oil AN HOUR.

 

I guess we could completely do away with the Fed, since apparently you think every state should get back what they pay in. If that was the case, what would actually be the point of having them?

[5 Wide]

Virtually the same as when?  Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression?  Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may  be problems with it, but it can be fixed.

873274[/snapback]

 

I was in Tops. I bought 2 gallons of milk, some hamburger meat, and 2 loaves of bread, all of which is irrelevant to what I'm getting to. The lady in front of me purchased $168.00 worth of groceries. She reached into her wallet, pushed aside a wad of twenties and pulled out her government issue food stamp card. She paid for her groceries. She left the store, got into her GMC Envoy and drove away. That was redistributed income at it's finest.

[Orton's Arm]

Oh it is different. The liberal spending programs actually do some good. Iraq is a complete disaster all around. Well, unless you hold share in Halliburton I suppose

873062[/snapback]

Very often liberal spending programs do far more harm than good. Take LBJ's Great Society program. You could make more money on welfare than at a very low wage job. What did people in low wage jobs do? Exactly what you'd expect them to do: they quit. A long-term effect of this is that many people in welfare communities lost the culture of work. This made it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

 

As though to ensure as many people were born into poverty as possible, the Great Society program included financial incentives for welfare recipients to have as many children as possible. And lest these children be born into stable, two-parent homes, welfare mothers were told they had to divorce their husbands if they expected to receive full welfare benefits. If a father had significant contact with his children after the divorce, he could expect to be punished for welfare fraud.

 

Nor were these problems unique to LBJ's great society program. Ronald Reagan wrote about how his father was a diehard Democrat. As such, Reagan's father was awarded a local position involving the distribution of New Deal government benefits. Reagan saw firsthand how these programs often discouraged people from finding short-term work.

 

Whatever happened to the harmful incentives created by the Great Society program? They were reformed by California's Republican governor Ronald Reagan back in the 1970s, and by the Republican Congress in the 1990s. Not only did liberal Democrats create massive problems with their wasteful and harmful social programs, they took little interest in solving those problems once the problems manifested themselves. It'd be less of a disaster for bin Laden to get an atomic bomb than for New Deal or Great Society liberals to get hold of government power.

[SilverNRed]

Virtually the same as when?  Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression?  Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may  be problems with it, but it can be fixed.

873274[/snapback]

Redistribution of income does work great. New York State's idiot liberal programs and ideas have successfully "redistributed" income from New York State to other states. Jobs too. And people!

 

Sure, most outside observers would say Buffalo is a complete dump compared to any prosperous city in the United States. But that's why we need you to explain to them that Buffalo is really a utopia. If only we had some more pork.......

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Yeah, I cash my PFD check every year.  I also pay more than my share of taxes, thank you very much.  If you're not paying $8K per person in your household annually to Uncle Sam, then you're a debtor.  About 85% of taxpayers fit that category and I'm not one of them - haven't been for more than a handful of years of my adult life.  Of course, during that time I was living on the poverty line while serving in the military.

 

The same can't be said of most Alaskans - in large part because the Fed has created a giant welfare state, but we'll just pretend it's because the people who lived here before statehood weren't hearty and just needed a little help to get by.  You know, since all you're actually doing is regurgitating soundbytes.  Alaska is a prime example of handouts gone haywire over span.

 

As far as the other lame part of your argument:  Alaska has been a state for fewer than 50 years.  It also contains fewer than 700,000 people.  It only stands to reason that a state that's nearly 200 years younger, is 12 TIMES larger, yet has about one/thirtieth the population of New York would get some assistance on Constitutionally mandated infrastructure (which, if you must know, the Fed hasn't lived up to it's end of the statehood agreement).  You know, since we are supplying 88 THOUSAND barrels of oil AN HOUR.

 

I guess we could completely do away with the Fed, since apparently you think every state should get back what they pay in.  If that was the case, what would actually be the point of having them?

873403[/snapback]

 

Soundbytes? Nah. Facts, Darin, facts. Actually, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your attack on government programs, while you, as an Alaskan resident, are a prime beneficiary of both state and federal programs. Sorry, Darin; I enjoy your posts, but it is what it is....

 

To think that SS has somehow stunted America or weakened it is absolutely ridiculous. You can throw around buzz words like welfare state and the like, but as someone of intelligence, you know it is something much less dramatic and beneficial on the whole.

 

As for attacks on Alaska, I'm not into them. I'm more into attacks on hypocrisy of your argument concerning SS and other beneficial governmental programs. And again, for the record, I am a Republican (before I get painted with some brush).

[Bungee Jumper]

Im still trying to figure out how he managed to define paying salaries for basic social services as "pork."

 

If I can figure that one out, the formula for cold fusion cant be far behind!

873340[/snapback]

 

 

You know, it's awfully rare that you and I are on the same side of an idiot-bashing contest. Who are you, and where's the real RkFast?

[Orton's Arm]

Soundbytes?  Nah.  Facts, Darin, facts. Actually, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your attack on government programs, while you, as an Alaskan resident, are a prime beneficiary of both state and federal programs.  Sorry, Darin; I enjoy your posts, but it is what it is....

Unless Darin has some secret life I don't know about, I don't see how he's guilty of hypocrisy. You seem to be giving him three choices: 1) Sell his Alaska home, and move to a state that gets fewer subsidies. 2) Welcome high levels of government spending, even though he can clearly see this spending is often wasteful or worse. 3) Admit that he's a hypocrite.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see why Darin should have to take any of the three choices you've given him.

[Bungee Jumper]

Unless Darin has some secret life I don't know about, I don't see how he's guilty of hypocrisy. You seem to be giving him three choices: 1) Sell his Alaska home, and move to a state that gets fewer subsidies. 2) Welcome high levels of government spending, even though he can clearly see this spending is often wasteful or worse. 3) Admit that he's a hypocrite.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see why Darin should have to take any of the three choices you've given him.

873541[/snapback]

 

No matter which choice he took, he'd be in error anyway. He should regress toward the mean and take the 1.5th option...

[Orton's Arm]

No matter which choice he took, he'd be in error anyway.  He should regress toward the mean and take the 1.5th option...

873567[/snapback]

Save it for the regression toward the mean thread.

[Bungee Jumper]

Save it for the regression toward the mean thread.

873574[/snapback]

 

I'll stop polluting threads when you do.

[Orton's Arm]

I'll stop polluting threads when you do.

873576[/snapback]

I wasn't polluting this thread with talk of regression toward the mean. I was addressing the issue of Darin's Alaskan residency as it related to his so-called hypocrisy. You were the one who chose to hijack this thread by making it about regression toward the mean. Apparently, those quotes I found from Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the EPA, and other sources weren't enough to shut you up.

[Bungee Jumper]

I wasn't polluting this thread with talk of regression toward the mean. I was addressing the issue of Darin's Alaskan residency as it related to his so-called hypocrisy. You were the one who chose to hijack this thread by making it about regression toward the mean. Apparently, those quotes I found from Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the EPA, and other sources weren't enough to shut you up.

873585[/snapback]

 

I didn't say "polluting with talk of regression toward the mean." I said "polluting".

[Orton's Arm]

I didn't say "polluting with talk of regression toward the mean."  I said "polluting". 

873587[/snapback]

Right. So now it's "pollution" to dispute a spurious charge leveled against Darin. Gotcha.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Unless Darin has some secret life I don't know about, I don't see how he's guilty of hypocrisy. You seem to be giving him three choices: 1) Sell his Alaska home, and move to a state that gets fewer subsidies. 2) Welcome high levels of government spending, even though he can clearly see this spending is often wasteful or worse. 3) Admit that he's a hypocrite.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see why Darin should have to take any of the three choices you've given him.

873541[/snapback]

 

 

My point is that he, as someone who is one of the bigger beneficiaries of government programs (state and federal), is attacking government programs as promoting the welfare state. While moving would be ridiculous, he could chose to not cash his fund check. That's a bit less drastic, isn't it? In reality, I don't think he should do this, just as he shouldn't be advocating the cessation of the subsistence payments to the elderly, the widowed and the orphaned--sounds a bit different than the "welfare state" doesn't it?

 

That being said, I'm regretting making this personal as to him, as this could be any crazy Alaskan advocating the cessation the SS program.... If I've offended, my apologies.

[Bungee Jumper]

Right. So now it's "pollution" to dispute a spurious charge leveled against Darin. Gotcha.

873591[/snapback]

 

No. It's pollution when you post. Anything.

[Orton's Arm]

No.  It's pollution when you post.  Anything.

873656[/snapback]

In other words, you're on a personal crusade against me, and you're determined to pursue this crusade by making fun of a statistical phenomenon described by Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and other credible sources. I understand completely.

[/dev/null]

This who thread ranks up there with the other questions from the press corps over the last few days. That is, their "outrage" that the WH didnt announce Laura Bush's surgery beforehand and why shes now not doing an advocate to prevent skin cancer.

 

In essence, the press corps now L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y gets in a tizzy when someone get has an odd mole removed from their ass.

873075[/snapback]

 

No they're in a tizzy because they didn't get a chance to report on it as it was happening. the 24 hour news cycle could have had a field day with laura bush's cancer surgery.

 

they'd get at least a couple hours of some guy standing outside the hospital saying there is no word yet on when Mrs Bush was going in for surgery

 

another couple hours of file footage of the first lady

 

an hour or 2 of interviews with some surgeon from the West Kansas Medical Center of North Asscrack Wisconsin

 

a clip of Tony Snow denying she had cancer

a clip of Tony Snow refusing to say when she was having surgury on the grounds of national security

 

some clips of the bush twins...well, okay that one is worthwhile

 

And that's just before the surgury.

 

Remember the media frenzy when Clinton took a spill and injured The Royal Knee

[Bungee Jumper]

In other words, you're on a personal crusade against me, and you're determined to pursue this crusade by making fun of a statistical phenomenon described by Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and other credible sources. I understand completely.

873660[/snapback]

 

No, I'm not making fun of Stanford, UC, etc. I'm making fun of you. Because you're an extreme moron...which is surprising, since as extreme a moron as you are you should have regressed toward a semblance of intelligence by now...

[Orton's Arm]

No, I'm not making fun of Stanford, UC, etc.  I'm making fun of you.  Because you're an extreme moron...which is surprising, since as extreme a moron as you are you should have regressed toward a semblance of intelligence by now...

873669[/snapback]

Right. Because when I wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 130 or an unlucky 150, it was a sign of sheer idiocy. But when the Stanford author wrote that someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test could be a lucky 135 or an unlucky 145, it was a stroke of sheer brilliance. Likewise, when I went on to point out that there are more 130s available for getting lucky than there are 150s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of a blathering idiot. But when the Stanford author pointed out that there are more 135s available for getting lucky than there are 145s available for getting unlucky, it was a sign of solid scholarship. And when I used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it showed that I didn't know the difference between error and variance. But when the Stanford author used the word "error" to describe the difference between someone's measured score and true score, it was good scholarship.

[jjamie12]

Soundbytes?  Nah.  Facts, Darin, facts. Actually, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your attack on government programs, while you, as an Alaskan resident, are a prime beneficiary of both state and federal programs. 

I don't understand this. Doesn't this actually make his argument all the more compelling? If someone who is supposedly the 'beneficiary' of 'government largesse' is decrying the system, doesn't that say something much more powerful to you than someone who is NOT benefitting from the programs and decrying those same programs? To me, his living in Alaska (and possibly losing $$ due to his advocacy), actually makes me stop and think that there is something more to his position, not degrade it.

 

But that's just me...