Another Disgusting Oil Spill!!

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3268450
Sorry for the rash of posts - I work during the day and give my employer my full attention, for which they pay me to do. When I get home, there are so many new posts to review that I missed during the day. I do send a lot of emails, work related though...
What the hell? You actually work rather than surf the net all day? Whats the world coming to

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268459
So anyone who doesn't follow the leftist agenda is an idiot. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
It's not my shoe
All wrong The Reich agenda - the ones who follow the anointed one Beck

and praise Palin's genius. They are both genius at cashing in.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268469
What the hell? You actually work rather than surf the net all day? Whats the world coming to

We Dems are carrying the world on our shoulders and low income repubs.

If my employer would hire me to surf the Web for personal pleasure, I would oblige . However, that is not what they are paying me to do. I hate my life, a slave to the almighty dollar.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268363
They did prove McCain's citizenship, and birthplace. (ironically it was Panama) on a U.S. Military base (hence his eligibility)
Did they ask to see his birth certificate to prove it? Do they have official documents showing he was actually at the Military Base? There's physical evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii (confirmation from the hospital, hence his eligibility). Where's the difference?

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268345
If someone asked you if you think Obama is a citizen and you said yes you would be giving an uninformed answer unless you have personally seen a certified copy of his birth certificate. Because questions have been raised and he goes out of his way not to provide proof it raises legitimate questions. I would assume the DNC would never have allowed him to become the nominee without knowing he met the qualifications but I don't know it for a fact. I would assume the Republicans questioned would have the sense to have a similar response.
What people forget with Obama is he is YOUNG. I'm a bit of a hothead myself and about his age and honestly if I was in his place I would tell the birthers to FO too. LOL
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268469
What the hell? You actually work rather than surf the net all day? Whats the world coming to

If he works for a living that means there is still hope he'll come to his senses and vote conservative...
You may not like palin but unlike many many states in this country hers isn't bankrupt...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268519
If he works for a living that means there is still hope he'll come to his senses and vote conservative...
You may not like palin but unlike many many states in this country hers isn't bankrupt...
True and when members of her own party pulled crooked stuff she nailed them on it. A trait sorely lacking in DC.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268523
True and when members of her own party pulled crooked stuff she nailed them on it. A trait sorely lacking in DC.
Yes, Palin was a firm backer of Alaska's socialist system, every person gets a check regardless off of oil money, yet at the same time the state is funded by a boatload of federal funds.
Fishtaco (Palin is the answer, really?)

 

[stdreb27]

Lefties love to point this out. But I just don't get it. The state government actually earns money. And instead of blowing it on social program they return it to the people. How is that a bad thing?
Vs say new York.

 

[mrdc]

Let's put all the illegals on cleaning up the oil spill. When they are done, we can ship them back. Or at least throw them back over the fence.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3268570
Let's put all the illegals on cleaning up the oil spill. When they are done, we can ship them back. Or at least throw them back over the fence.

You know what is funny about that, it is ok for illegals to get free medical care at our ER's and in Obama's bill, recieve entitlement programs etc. But if they get a job in this country the feds go after them with a vengance...

 

[mrdc]

That is true. Everything about the free ride illegals get in this country sucks. There was a debate last night about whether or not this illegal should be able to finish her last year of college. I need to look up the details.

 

[stdreb27]

poor BP they're throwing everything and the kitchen sink at this now. Anytime they say, try to stick a pipe inside the pipe. They've reached the end of the line...

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268557
Lefties love to point this out. But I just don't get it. The state government actually earns money. And instead of blowing it on social program they return it to the people. How is that a bad thing?
Vs say new York.
Well it is very simple, they distribute that money to the citizens while getting 1.82 back for every federal tax dollar they put in. On top of that the money is distributed to every man, woman and child in the state regardless of if they contribute or not. You tell me what a conservative thinks that system should be called?
If Alaska was forced to receive the same amount of federal money as a liberal state like Oregon those oil revenue checks would dry up and be no more. Just an interesting factoid for you, Oregon breaks even, for every dollar they pay in federal tax they get a dollar back, I wonder how much better things would be if we got the same amount as Alaska? We already get kicker checks from the state but that is just a second refund on the taxes I actually paid.
Fishtaco

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268587
Well it is very simple, they distribute that money to the citizens while getting 1.82 back for every federal tax dollar they put in. On top of that the money is distributed to every man, woman and child in the state regardless of if they contribute or not. You tell me what a conservative thinks that system should be called?
If Alaska was forced to receive the same amount of federal money as a liberal state like Oregon those oil revenue checks would dry up and be no more. Just an interesting factoid for you, Oregon breaks even, for every dollar they pay in federal tax they get a dollar back, I wonder how much better things would be if we got the same amount as Alaska? We already get kicker checks from the state but that is just a second refund on the taxes I actually paid.
Fishtaco
Here is where most of the federal funding is for. Most of Alaska land is federally owned. The fed pays Alaska to maintain and monitor it. THAT is why they receive so much federal money. New Mexico is no different in this regard and not far behind Alaska in federal dollars received....and not near the size of alaska.
These states would NOT be getting so much money if the federal government didn't have land in those states.
Pointing out the amount of money a state gets from the fed is fine and dandy, but don't try to hide WHY they get so much.

 

[darthtang aw]

almost 70% of Alaska is federaly owned land.
Oregon is around 50%
what is the difference in population between the two. This is why you see such a disparity between the amount of money given to citizens. The fed pays so much per acre...so if the population is less in one state but holds more federal land then there is more money to go around between it's citizens. If Alaska had a population closer to New York, you would see a lot less money going to each citizen. This is NOT a result of lobbying or ear marks, this is a result of the standard rate across the board the fed pays each state per acre of land.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268590
Here is where most of the federal funding is for. Most of Alaska land is federally owned. The fed pays Alaska to maintain and monitor it. THAT is why they receive so much federal money. New Mexico is no different in this regard and not far behind Alaska in federal dollars received....and not near the size of alaska.
These states would NOT be getting so much money if the federal government didn't have land in those states.
Pointing out the amount of money a state gets from the fed is fine and dandy, but don't try to hide WHY they get so much.
I'm not trying to hide anything Darth, tell me what does Alaska actually use that money for, because they don't even have a lot of access into those federal lands. I had a person from Alaska use the same arguement, then go on to say they don't see much in the way of improved roads, emergency services, law enforcement or much of anything else from all that federal money. So one must assume that the state is using that money to remain in the black and write those checks.
It's kind of like getting X amount of dollars to take care of a foster kid from the government, then providing the bare minimum of care, food and clothing and spending the rest on whatever you want.
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268587
Well it is very simple, they distribute that money to the citizens while getting 1.82 back for every federal tax dollar they put in. On top of that the money is distributed to every man, woman and child in the state regardless of if they contribute or not. You tell me what a conservative thinks that system should be called?
If Alaska was forced to receive the same amount of federal money as a liberal state like Oregon those oil revenue checks would dry up and be no more. Just an interesting factoid for you, Oregon breaks even, for every dollar they pay in federal tax they get a dollar back, I wonder how much better things would be if we got the same amount as Alaska? We already get kicker checks from the state but that is just a second refund on the taxes I actually paid.
Fishtaco
oh wait he beat me to it.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268590
Here is where most of the federal funding is for. Most of Alaska land is federally owned. The fed pays Alaska to maintain and monitor it. THAT is why they receive so much federal money. New Mexico is no different in this regard and not far behind Alaska in federal dollars received....and not near the size of alaska.
These states would NOT be getting so much money if the federal government didn't have land in those states.
Pointing out the amount of money a state gets from the fed is fine and dandy, but don't try to hide WHY they get so much.
you can try and make this more complicated than it really is. But it is simple...
The feds pay the state of Alaska to maintain federally owned property, which they do at a profit.
The state makes deals with oil companies to drill on state property...
The state runs a surplus so it returns a portion of that to the people.
Where is the disqualifying, and horrendous portion of that. What is the hang up? The roads suck? (of course they're gonna suck that place is an ice rink for half the year)
You know how much they pay to work a road crew in Alaska? IT is stupid good money... Enough to work the summer on a road crew and not work the rest of the year...
Personally I'm just befuddled at the people who run around trying to discredit Alaska, while liberal utopia states like California, Michigan, and New York, are struggling to stay afloat...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268596
I'm not trying to hide anything Darth, tell me what does Alaska actually use that money for, because they don't even have a lot of access into those federal lands. I had a person from Alaska use the same arguement, then go on to say they don't see much in the way of improved roads, emergency services, law enforcement or much of anything else from all that federal money. So one must assume that the state is using that money to remain in the black and write those checks.
It's kind of like getting X amount of dollars to take care of a foster kid from the government, then providing the bare minimum of care, food and clothing and spending the rest on whatever you want.
Fishtaco
The money is going to citizens that live there. If they want better roads they can vote people in that will use the money that way, but obviously they prefer to have the money given to them instead, hence the beauty of our system. The fed passed a law stating how much they would pay each state per acre but never passed a law stating all that money had to only be used for those lands. That was left up to the states to decide.
If the citizens of the state want those things in place of the check they get (or reduced taxes) they can vote in someone that will do this.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268602
The money is going to citizens that live there. If they want better roads they can vote people in that will use the money that way, but obviously they prefer to have the money given to them instead, hence the beauty of our system. The fed passed a law stating how much they would pay each state per acre but never passed a law stating all that money had to only be used for those lands. That was left up to the states to decide.
If the citizens of the state want those things in place of the check they get (or reduced taxes) they can vote in someone that will do this.
So why am I getting worked for pointing out that Alaska has a good deal going and gets a lot of federal money. I wonder how Alaska would be doing if the government deeded all that land back to them and they where forced to get by on what my state gets? I'm just pointing out that Alaska is not doing anything special, except collecting a lot of rent and being lucky enough to have oil. They are redistributing others tax dollar in the finest socialist tradition up there.
Of course the true believers will tell you it was all Palin's good work. LOL