McCain and the Science Vote?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

For about the 30th time: INFRASTRUCTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Each state would have plenty of money for education if the Federal government were handling ONLY what they were legally responsible for instead of trying to play the pied piper and mandating things most places don't need or want and can't pay for.

Which is why it is such a cluster, because they never will, but how else are you going to get the funding for local education without them. Need to start a movement, Education Funding with Local Control. Eliminate "No Child Left Behind"

[elegantelliotoffen]

For about the 30th time: INFRASTRUCTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Each state would have plenty of money for education if the Federal government were handling ONLY what they were legally responsible for instead of trying to play the pied piper and mandating things most places don't need or want and can't pay for.

 

See Figure 4 please

 

Infrastructure aid is only a fraction of the federal aid Alaska receives. In fact Alaska receives more federal aid for health and human services than infrastructure.

 

Then check out Figure 7 and you'll see that the highway trust fund is only a sliver compared to medical assistance programs, family support payments, and "other programs".

[molson_golden2002]

are you saying that you disagree with the notion that this could have been financed by the private sector or that we shouldn't even bother because it is now considered "infractructure"?

 

Dude, if it is the latter - that is retarded. Use $3M of public funding - that only exists because we finance it with foreign loans - or just have wealthy philanthropists pay for it? Wow, tough decision there.

 

If the place is that worthwhile and that popular - financing it in the private sector is a no-brainer. How that is even arguable is beyond me.

Wow

 

So where are these wealthy philanthropists willing to pay for this? Is there a line they are waiting in to spend there money? And if they are, wouldn't they just spend it on something else if the government already did this?

 

I suppose you think the churches and charity could replace welfare, too? Heck, why not medicare also!

[molson_golden2002]

For about the 30th time: INFRASTRUCTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Each state would have plenty of money for education if the Federal government were handling ONLY what they were legally responsible for instead of trying to play the pied piper and mandating things most places don't need or want and can't pay for.

James Madison would have disagreed with you. Of course, Hamilton would have agreed with you and not with Madison.

 

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

 

James Madison,

President of the United States

 

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

[Alaska Darin]

See Figure 4 please

 

Infrastructure aid is only a fraction of the federal aid Alaska receives. In fact Alaska receives more federal aid for health and human services than infrastructure.

 

Then check out Figure 7 and you'll see that the highway trust fund is only a sliver compared to medical assistance programs, family support payments, and "other programs".

Go ahead and find a single post of mine that supports "medical assistance programs, family support payments, and "other programs".

 

Since you apparently don't know how to use the search feature:

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

And:

 

Once again, you'll note that I didn't state support for either bridge - especially at the projected costs. I simply stated that development follows infrastructure and the U.S. government hasn't delivered on the promises to enhance Alaska's infrastructure.

 

And:

 

Way to eat up the media hype.

 

First, there were 2 bridges. One was between Anchorage and the MatSu Valley. Anchorage is basically landlocked by mountains on the North and Cook Inlet to the South. There is ONE road in and out of town to both the East and West. That bridge would have opened up millions of acres to development and cut travel time to the valley by half, and actually make housing affordable here (Not much room in Alaska's biggest city left to develop, so now old neighborhoods that were affordable are now being bought up, torn down, and rebuilt with half million dollar plus houses).

 

It also would have made the Seward Highway (a very dangerous road in the winter) significantly safer by cutting its traffic load by about 40%. The problem is how expensive the bridge is going to end up being because of the incredible tide swings of the inlet. I'm pretty sure the money for that bridge was only about a fifth of the cost. I'm sure it would have been the most expensive bridge in US history.

 

The second bridge was between Ketchikan and Gravina. It would have replaced a ferry system that services HALF A MILLION people a year. Yes, Gravina has a small population but the SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT in Southeast Alaska is on that island (200,000+ passengers annually). The problem with that bridge is it has to be very tall because of the hundreds of cruise ships that traverse that passage each year, making it way more expensive.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was a "Bridge to Nowhere" when it was built. Development follows infrastructure, not vice versa and the Federal Government has not lived up to the infrastructure promises it made to the state when the statehood deal was made. Of course, Ted Stevens has gotten the Fed to waste a ton of money on a bunch of other unneeded crap up here, so that's probably his penance.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that either of these bridges should have been funded at that time or even that they should ever be. Only the repetition of the tired phrase based on typical media bull sh--.

So thanks for explaining how things work in my state. I was very confused before you interjected.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Go ahead and find a single post of mine that supports "medical assistance programs, family support payments, and "other programs".

 

You were responding to the guy's comment about Alaska receiving more federal aid than they pay in taxes by saying that "INFRASTRUCTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY" implying that the only reason why Alaska is one of the largest recipients of federal aid while being one of the lowest contributer of federal tax revenue is because maintaining their infrastructure is so costly. In reality it's only a drop in the bucket.

 

Since you apparently don't know how to use the search feature:

 

Because I really give a sh-- about your multitude of opinions on the federal aid Alaska receives, right?

[Alaska Darin]

You were responding to the guy's comment about Alaska receiving more federal aid than they pay in taxes by saying that "INFRASTRUCTURE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY" implying that the only reason why Alaska is one of the largest recipients of federal aid while being one of the lowest contributer of federal tax revenue is because maintaining their infrastructure is so costly.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. Your reading comprehension put some pretty interesting words in you head that weren't there.

 

I love the always bankrupt "lowest contributer (sic) of federal tax revenue" argument. I'm sorry, should everyone receive back the exact amount they put in? What exactly would be the need for a federal government if that was the case? And color me stunned that a state with a really small population, long tenured politicians, and a group of people who the federal government has been using as their "welfare experiment" would be pulling in a disproportionate share of federal tax dollars.

 

As a liberal, you should be wicked happy that all of those Natives are getting free health care, job assistance, family counseling, etc on you dime. Or is central control of such things unpalatable to you in this instance for some inexplicable reason?

 

In reality it's only a drop in the bucket.

Which is, and always has been, my argument. But you're a hypocritical liberal who somehow thinks because of my residence that I have some kind of say in a matter that your politics are 100% behind.

Because I really give a sh-- about your multitude of opinions on the federal aid Alaska receives, right?

What exactly are my "multitudes" of opinions? I do love the "don't care" thing now that you've been exposed as absolutely incorrect. Of course you don't care.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I'm sorry, should everyone receive back the exact amount they put in?

 

Damn socialist!