Bridge-to-Nowhere Hack gets tax AWARD (Anchorage, Kodiak: insurance, credit, buy)

[warptman]

Originally Posted by babyorr9

Indeed, let me say again, though Young is a hack, I mean no disresprect to Alaskans. This is the same argument neocons give when someone questions the administration, "You're obviously un-American."

If you say this, why did you post it in the way you did? You are disrespecting all of us by calling him a hack.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

It's all pork. See my other posts in this thread. I don't support any of it, no matter the state.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I look at it this way, as the 48th least populous state in the Union, with only one Representative, in a system that distributes power by seniority (particularly in the House), it is in Alaska's best interests to elect, and continually reelect, a Representative until they are in a position to get for Alaska what all the other more populous states already get. Rep. Young and Sen. Stevens are now senior members of Congress, and all those years reelecting them and getting nothing in return is finally beginning to pay off.

Alaska is approximately one fifth the size of the lower-48, yet has fewer roads and bridges than even the smallest state. If Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee can get the feds to pay for their Blue Ridge Expressway, then why can't Alaska get a similar federal contribution for two lousy bridges? If you want to eliminate ALL federal infrastructure spending, that's fine with me. But as long as other states receive federal funding for their roads and bridges, then Alaska should not be treated any differently.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Glitch

If you want to eliminate ALL federal infrastructure spending, that's fine with me.

That is precisely what I'm saying, eliminate all the pork. With the government in so much debt anyways (debt owned by foreign countries) it should be cutting back drastically. If the federal govenrment spends any money at all, it should only be to benefit the entire country. For example, national defense (which doesn't include being the world's policeman), getting us off our oil addiction, etc.

[warptman]

He may be a hack to you, he's helped rural Alaska through the state by building new runways in the villages along with new schools and roads in the larger communities and helped get running water to households. When was the last time you had no running water? People in rural Alaska are now finally getting water systems up and running and no longer depending on "honey" buckets and hauling water by themselves. I'd like to see you come live out here off the road system in a village and see how the money gets spent and then you will realize what a "hack" he is.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by babyorr9

Please, allow me to apologize. I was genuinely unaware that a portion of your pork would actually benefit that large a number of people. However, would it not be more cost effective to simply provide ferry service for those that live in Matanuska/Sisitna?

A ferry doesn't work well when the inlet freezes over.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by babyorr9

Aside from the accurate portrayal of both the above Boston and LA examples, did you really need a bridge that connects 7,500 people to 50? Simply because there is an airport there? Further, did this bridge need to cost 400 million dollars? Was such a monumental structure necessary; taller than the Brooklyn and nearly as long as the Golden Gate? You know why I protest, but state pride is getting in the way...

Your bias and/or misunderstanding of the facts is showing here as well. Yes, The Gravina bridge was intended to connect Ketchikan with the airport. However beacause Ketchikan's primary industry is tourism, Ketchikan International Airport currently accomodates approx 200,000 passengers per year and the ferry, which the bridge was to replace, carries about 500,000 passengers per year back and forth to the island. The size of the bridge was dictated by the need to accommodate the large Cruise Ships.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

That is precisely what I'm saying, eliminate all the pork. With the government in so much debt anyways (debt owned by foreign countries) it should be cutting back drastically. If the federal govenrment spends any money at all, it should only be to benefit the entire country. For example, national defense (which doesn't include being the world's policeman), getting us off our oil addiction, etc.

What the feds spend on infrastructure in all 50 states and US territories is a pittance compared to what is spent on federal socialist programs. Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid alone account for 57%, or $1.767 trillion, of FY08's $3.1 trillion budget.

If we eliminated the federal socialist programs, we could pay off the entire National Debt within 5 years, and because we wouldn't be paying 18% of the budget on those interest payments, we could give every taxpayer a 75% across the board reduction in their federal taxes. But that is getting off topic.

It is unreasonable (and hypocritical if from another state), to complain about the federal contributions to Alaska's infrastructure while every other state takes even more federal funding than Alaska.

[babyorr9]

Originally Posted by warptman

If you say this, why did you post it in the way you did? You are disrespecting all of us by calling him a hack.

You are not your elected official. We are not George Bush. Elected officials can do bad things that their constituents have no control over. Would you say that Washington is beyond reproach simply because they are our government? Personally, they applied for the job; they should be ready to handle a little more scrutiny than the average guy. In the 3 months I spent in Wasilla, I loved it there. No more beautiful place on earth. Please, do not take my criticisms of Young personal. Unless you're family.

[warptman]

Ah, an Alaska expert with three months under your belt. Amazing. You still haven't answered the other question, have you ever hauled water from a barrel or crapped in a bucket? He doesn't only "waste" money on bridges, he helps the whole of Alaska with running water into villages and improved airstrips to bring supplies in.

[babyorr9]

Originally Posted by Glitch

What the feds spend on infrastructure in all 50 states and US territories is a pittance compared to what is spent on federal socialist programs. Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid alone account for 57%, or $1.767 trillion, of FY08's $3.1 trillion budget.

If we eliminated the federal socialist programs, we could pay off the entire National Debt within 5 years, and because we wouldn't be paying 18% of the budget on those interest payments, we could give every taxpayer a 75% across the board reduction in their federal taxes. But that is getting off topic.

It is unreasonable (and hypocritical if from another state), to complain about the federal contributions to Alaska's infrastructure while every other state takes even more federal funding than Alaska.

Absolutely no argument here. There are myriad socialist entitlements nd programs that should be reconsidered and some abandoned. Wasteful spending is one of those. Now, in absolute dollars, you may be correct that more is spent in other states. But per capita, and in revenue generated, Alaska is number 1 in pork barrel. For every dollar in pork, Alaskans only generate $16, which is well below the average for all states. You don't like me commenting because I'm not "Alaskan". I get it.