Alaska Darin Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Maybe our federal income taxes would be a little lower without freeloading states like Alaska and Wyoming would stop demanding far more federal aid than the federal tax revenues they collect? You mean because every state should get back exactly what they put in? That somehow makes sense, right? I have zero love for the pork system and the ridiculous earmarks that lawmakers put in. But if you think that newer, less populous states don't deserve a disproportionate share of the infrastructure pie than older, more developed states then you're an idiot. But thanks for parroting the another ridiculous talking point. The "For Profit" media is proud of themselves for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 You mean because every state should get back exactly what they put in? That somehow makes sense, right? I have zero love for the pork system and the ridiculous earmarks that lawmakers put in. But if you think that newer, less populous states don't deserve a disproportionate share of the infrastructure pie than older, more developed states then you're an idiot. That sounds an awful lot like socialism and income redistribution doesn't it? Why can't Stalinist Alaska get off the federal welfare dole? Isn't it about time those Alaskan liberals showed some personal responsibility and stopped expecting handouts? I guess as long as Uncle Sam keeps subsidizing them they'll have no incentive to help themselves. Those 600,000 Alaskans are entitled to be the 2nd highest per capita beneficiary of federal aid even though they are they rank 39th in per capita federal taxes contributed, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 That sounds an awful lot like socialism and income redistribution doesn't it? Does it? So you're advocating that each state should get back EXACTLY what they put in? What's the point of the Federal Government being in charge of infrastructure if that's the case? Wouldn't the states be better off deciding how best to spend their own money rather than sending it off to the black hole of our Nation's Capital? Why can't Stalinist Alaska get off the federal welfare dole? Isn't it about time those Alaskan liberals showed some personal responsibility and stopped expecting handouts? Because like most of the rest of America, they continue to vote for the same people over and over again. Since that's how the system "works", the state gets far more than it's share of pork. You wanna take on the apparatus and change it? Good luck given your abilities. I guess as long as Uncle Sam keeps subsidizing them they'll have no incentive to help themselves. Those 600,000 Alaskans are entitled to be the 2nd highest per capita beneficiary of federal aid even though they are they rank 39th in per capita federal taxes contributed, right? Nope. Just like "Native" Alaskans shouldn't have hospitals built for them with taxpayer money that only they're eligible to use. Nor should they be allowed to form "for profit" companies that are given preferential treatment to the tune of billions of dollars annually. You're preaching to the choir where that's concerned. But as far as "infrastructure" (roads, bridges, etc), the Federal Government has not held up their end of the bargain. Try and stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Does it? So you're advocating that each state should get back EXACTLY what they put in? What's the point of the Federal Government being in charge of infrastructure if that's the case? Wouldn't the states be better off deciding how best to spend their own money rather than sending it off to the black hole of our Nation's Capital? Actually transportation infrastructure is only a fraction of the federal aid Alaska receives. Alaska received 2.5 billions dollars for agriculture, 23 million for "rural development activities", 147 million for Education, 900 million for Health and Human Services, 40 million for Homeland Security, 179 million for HUD, 50 million for low income housing and block grants, 87 million for Indian Affairs, 31 million for unemployment insurance and many more handouts. Transportation infrastructure only accounts for 600 million of Alaska's federal aid. Why should California, Texas, New York and Illinois subsidize federal welfare queen Alaska? Isn't this socialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Actually transportation infrastructure is only a fraction of the federal aid Alaska receives. Alaska received 2.5 billions dollars for agriculture, 23 million for "rural development activities", 147 million for Education, 900 million for Health and Human Services, 40 million for Homeland Security, 179 million for HUD, 50 million for low income housing and block grants, 87 million for Indian Affairs, 31 million for unemployment insurance and many more handouts. Transportation infrastructure only accounts for 600 million of Alaska's federal aid. Why should California, Texas, New York and Illinois subsidize federal welfare queen Alaska? Isn't this socialism? Where exactly did I advocate any of those things? Stop trying so hard to take words off my keyboard. And INFRASTRUCTURE is not limited to roads and bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Where exactly did I advocate any of those things? Stop trying so hard to take words off my keyboard. And INFRASTRUCTURE is not limited to roads and bridges. In other words income redistribution and socialism is acceptable as long as it benefits you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 People keep looking at the Alaska population in regards to taxes. How much of those Billions of tax $ that the oil companies paid came from activities in Alaska? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 People keep looking at the Alaska population in regards to taxes. How much of those Billions of tax $ that the oil companies paid came from activities in Alaska? Obviously not a whole lot if Alaska is 39th in per capita federal tax revenue generated while Delaware (home of the credit card industry) ranks first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 In other words income redistribution and socialism is acceptable as long as it benefits you. Where exactly did I say that? Be very specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Where exactly did I say that? Be very specific. It can be inferred by your defense of Alaska reliance on federal entitlement programs that are funded by the taxes paid by your fellow liberals in California and Manhattan. I'm sure you also had no problem cashing that Alaska Permanent Fund check, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 It can be inferred by your defense of Alaska reliance on federal entitlement programs that are funded by the taxes paid by your fellow liberals in California and Manhattan. So when I said this: I have zero love for the pork system and the ridiculous earmarks that lawmakers put in. And this: Since that's how the system "works", the state gets far more than it's share of pork AND this: Just like "Native" Alaskans shouldn't have hospitals built for them with taxpayer money that only they're eligible to use. Nor should they be allowed to form "for profit" companies that are given preferential treatment to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Pay special attention to: You're preaching to the choir where that's concerned. Yet your conclusion is exactly the opposite. Sheer genius. I'm sure you also had no problem cashing that Alaska Permanent Fund check, did you? Why would I? I'd venture to guess I pay more in taxes annually than you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Why would I? I'd venture to guess I pay more in taxes annually than you make. I'd imagine that you'd have no problem cashing a check from a program that looks like it was designed by Hugo Chavez! It must be nice to live in Alaska and be funded by the largesse of Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and George Soros while getting free "gubmint" money every year for oil that you've done nothing to pump. I'm jealous. Can you recommend some good neighborhoods that I can move to up there? This sounds like the ultimate socialist welfare state! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 I'd imagine that you'd have no problem cashing a check from a program that looks like it was designed by Hugo Chavez! It must be nice to live in Alaska and be funded by the largesse of Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and George Soros while getting free "gubmint" money every year for oil that you've done nothing to pump. I'm jealous. Can you recommend some good neighborhoods that I can move to up there? This sounds like the ultimate socialist welfare state! You can keep regurgitating the same garbage. Obviously that's all the brain power you're blessed with. I'm not losing any sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 You can keep regurgitating the same garbage. Obviously that's all the brain power you're blessed with. I'm not losing any sleep over it. ZERO POINT ZERO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 ZERO POINT ZERO I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in "Potato Head". Can someone translate for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 It's more about whether or not big oil has manipulated the system. Remains to be seen. If it "remains to be seen," why penalize with the windfall profit tax? Besides pandering to an annoyed electorate that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in "Potato Head". Can someone translate for me? Zero point Zero is Bluto Blutarski's GPA. Sad to admit I speak Potato Head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 ZERO POINT ZERO Be careful, he makes more money than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Zero point Zero is Bluto Blutarski's GPA. Sad to admit I speak Potato Head. Well, you are in the education business. I guess I need to head over to the time machine. It's been awhile since I've seen an "Animal House" reset. Very refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Well, you are in the education business. I guess I need to head over to the time machine. It's been awhile since I've seen an "Animal House" reset. Very refreshing. I'm not in the education business. I'm a patent attorney, though I teach an occasional college course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts