I can’t really say one way or another when it comes to the Media. I only say her Economic policies sucked because I’ve read summaries regarding some of the Bills she signed.
Heh heh, this is fun.
I think she’s sweet, bus tire treads notwithsating.
please feel free to explain how my statement here equates with the claim that the republican party is controlled by katie couric.
what bills or policies has she signed or supported that you disagree with?
It’s not just what she has done, it’s what she hasn’t done! For one thing, there is no property or State Income Tax for Alaska and she never attempted to do anything about that when I believe they are the State to which the most federal dollars go per resident. Secondly, she lost over a half a million on selling the State’s jet.
She attempts to have Alaska take less in Federal funding and still won’t impose a Sales Tax or Income Tax on Alaskans, she actually wanted to stop having a State Gas Tax.
After all of that, do I really need to get into the Bridge to Nowhere, all that was would be a cheap way to rip off some Federal transportation dollars. Why do you think she cancelled the damn thing and didn’t give back the money?
Anyway, there have been more specific bills with smaller effects that I have looked at, but without putting the time back into re-researching them, I can’t recall specifically what they are or why I didn’t like them.
i dont pretend to know much about the politics or economic situation of alaska. however, i do know that alaska doesnt have income or property taxes because it receives so much revenue from oil production. and they do seem to get a lot of federal dollars, although palin spoke out against this and federal subsidies decreased while she was in office.
so are you just saying that having low taxes is the same as her economic policies “sucking”? if they can get by on lower taxes, thats usually seen as a good thing by most people. although it does seem that alaska has a moderate budget deficit, but that this is primarily due to the drop in oil prices over the last 12 months, and not because of an overlarge government sector in the state.
I am saying that their low taxes is the same as her Economic policies sucking. They only get by on low taxes because they are taking taxes from other citizens of the country, it has to be coming from other citizens of the country if that is where the most Federal money is going on a per person basis and they do not have the highest average income per resident in the country!
You mention that the deficit is primarily due to the drop in oil prices over the last 12 months, and you are absolutely correct. That is why the State Income and Sales Taxes should have been instituted quite some time ago. All of the green technology that is coming out (and this is just the beginning) is going to cut into oil revenues regardless of where the price point is and Alaska currently has all of its eggs in that basket. As a State, they are not and probably never will be self-sustaining (not that many of them really are) but what do you think the Federal Government is going to do in terms of routing money to Alaska when the Federal Government no longer needs as much, or any domestic oil? Or barely any oil at all for that matter?
Picture the Middle East economically if the Demand for oil were only a quarter of what it is today, that’s just like what the case would be for Alaska.
yes, but realistically demand for oil is not going to dry up any time soon. if anything it is going to skyrocket as soon as we get out of this bubble of artificially low crude oil prices.
i dont know anything about the reasons why alaska gets so much federal money. i can assume its related to oil production, but i dont know for sure. i know that palin cut some hundreds of millions or so in federal earmarks, made good on her promise to sell that jet thing (more publicity than anything else) and got rid of that bridge to nowhere… if youre upset about alaskans getting federal money, palin has been trying to curb that; also, BECAUSE of their low tax environment, and im sure other reasons as well, alaska is one of the most business friendly states in the country… not that this is enough for most businesses to want to relocate there.
there is no strict rule that states need income or property taxes. i hate these taxes, and i feel they are unconstitutional. if a state has such a large public sector that it needs to levy these taxes, i feel that public sector is too big. thats just my opinion, but regardless there is no mandated or universal reason why a state SHOULD levy these taxes. people like lower taxes, and if you can get by without them, so much the better. like you say, the state has a deficit, but so do most states right now, and alaskas is mild compared to others.
as for palin herself, i dont know why she up and left. i think its pretty irresponsible, to just vacate your post that you were elected for like that. especially if the rumors that shes getting her own tv show are true. i dont know much about her policies as governor, other than that she had high approval ratings from her people and was elected in a wide margin, and ran on fiscal conservativism, which i think is a good thing— of course, if it was just a sham because she still took federal money, i dont know, because i dont know the circumstances behind why or how alaska is granted federal money. i would have to look more deeply into the state and her policies to find out, but frankly i couldnt care less about her or her state.
i just think that prejudging her policies as bad just because she didnt increase taxes during a budget deficit is wrong. she did use veto power previously to clear away deficits, although i dont know how this went or what she did. i just know that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with refusing to raise taxes just because the state is in deficit; deficits are caused by government overspending and waste, so eliminating that and trimming down the size and scope of government to be smaller and more efficient is the proper way to address such deficits, not take it out on the citizens by just making them pay more taxes to support an inefficient and/or corrupt system.
They were artificially high before they were artificially low, everything was.
She got rid of the Bridge to Nowhere, but she kept the Federal money that was to be allocated to the project. The Bridge to Nowhere was nothing more than a ruse that she used to secure that Federal money to begin with.
I think the reason more businesses refrain from re-locating to Alaska has more to do with the Population Size and Density than the Climate, though I’m sure the climate plays some factor as well. Besides, Delaware trumps all when it comes to being business-friendly.
I think that the State might have Property Tax, but they might leave it up to cities/counties. It is the Income and Sales Taxes that Alaska does not have. When it comes to State Income Tax, I don’t wholly disagree with you, but I think that the State should at least have a sales tax if they are going to be in the hole and thriving on the tax dollar of Americans outside of Alaska.
The sad thing is, despite the fact that they get all of this Federal Tax money, they are still fifteenth in per capita income, that’s as of '07 anyway.
I agree that Alaska’s deficit is more mild than a State like, California for example. Imagine if Alaska (as a State) was only getting Federal Tax Dollars proportionately with the amount that they pay into the system, though, where would they be then?
Alaska is granted Federal Production Subsidies to encourage oil production.
She was elected by a wide margin, and while her approval rate was still safely over 50%, she has been on a fairly steady decline in approval rate since taking office. Of course, that is largely the result of the expected intense scrutiny whenever one is running for Vice-President.
That’s all very well, but the point that I am trying to make is that someone is paying for Alaska whether or not it is Alaskans is immaterial to me. It is your money (unless you live in Alaska) that is paying for these subsidies. Tax is tax, whether it comes from the State or from Federal, so essentially, you are paying for Alaska’s over-spending and waste.
For that reason, you should consider Alaska (when it comes to your taxes) like a single unemployed nineteen year-old Mother of four where you are paying for the Health Care for all of the kids as well as Food Stamps for the entire family, only we’re doing that for a State that should theoretically be able to get along well-enough without our help.
yes, of course as you probably know i am completely opposed to federal subsidies, for any state projects, at all. it is rediculous that people outside of a state need to pay for infrastructure and spending in that other state itself. i would never defend this practice at all, even if it were for a legitimate and well-managed spending plan.
yes, it seems that palin used the bridge to nowhere as a political con game during the election, even though she did support it initially. her apparent conservativsm seems flimsy when she is more than happy to welcome hundreds of millions for this bridge from federal coffers. and then her hypocrisy shows through when she changes her tune and acts as if she were the one who killed the project (when in fact it was Congress), and also in that youre right about how the state kept the funding they had been given.
pretty stupid, if you ask me. its one thing to run on fiscal conservativism (and its debatable how useful or justified this ideal is), but its quite another to be a hypocrite and put on a front and lie about your involvement about such issues. yes, “thats just politics”, of course, but it doesnt absolve those politicians who are nothing more than empty suits (as most of them turn out to be).
Exactly, her economic policies suck. Of course, the Legislative Branch of Alaska is to blame as well.
Anyway, wanting to reduce Federal dollars coming to your State in order to make your State more self-sufficient is a worthy goal, so you’re definitely right on that. The problem is, if you are going to maintain certain necessary levels of spending, the money has to come from somewhere. The thing is, Palin doesn’t care where that somewhere is, as long as it is not from Alaskans (at least not in the form of State Taxes) hence, her popularity.
yes, according to the knowledge that i have of her, i can certainly agree with that statement.
3x - you say it’s the media’s fault that her party attacks her. What does “fault” mean to you? If it’s my fault that I’m fat, then I am responsible for being fat. I control that fatness.
Explain what? It’s English 101.
A) the reason why the GOP party leadership openly criticizes and opposes Sarah Palin, despite her high approval rating among conservatives, is because of the populist hate and discrediting that originated in the media, and these leader’s desire to “not go against the grain” rather than stand on principle or with their constituents.
B) katie couric is in control of the Republican Party.
there is a difference between A and B. basic English and Logic 101.
Well, should they not criticise her just because she is popular? That wouldn’t be so good, would it?
Thing is, I hadn’t noticed that the Republican leadership has criticised her - I’m taking you word for that. But to say that they are not responsible for what they say seems odd.
i never said they are not responsible for what they say. im saying they are.
Right then. Whatever.