U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:30 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,035,059 times
Reputation: 14896

Advertisements

evilnewbie

Don't know where we are getting our information from?? Hummm...

First of all, in my original post I alluded to the fact that Alaska's population of 670,053 would rank behind Charlotte, North Carolina making the state the 20th largest city. But population has nothing to do with budget deficits or revenue particularly in the context of the threads original post. As for the high cost of living in Alaska, that also has no bearing on the issue. The OP by insinuation was attempting is trying to argue that due to some political superiority of Gov. Palin Alaska isn't suffering from the same economic malaise as other regions of the country, we have simply been pointing out that the state of Alaska's economic health has nothing to do with political stewardship.

But on that point I have to apologize, because the state of Alaska is indeed suffering from a shortfall in revenues, which will require not only dipping into its permanent fund but in a healthy reassessment of state spending. With 90% of state revenues supplied by oil taxes and royalties. It was assumed that FY 2009 oil prices would hover around $83 per barrel, obviously those projections were incorrect, so the state is facing a $402 million shortfall, which of course will be paid out of the state's oil fund.

Your arguments regarding cost of living are totally irrelevant and pointless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:34 AM
 
21,044 posts, read 19,530,486 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
No, that's based on the latest estimates that came out yesterday (I believe). These numbers are are NOT debated by Obama - and in fact the number MAY go even higher depending on the stimulus package.

Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090107/bs_nm/us_usa_budget - broken link)

Ken
I'm not debating the amount....but to say , "country goes to a $1 trillion dollar deficit under Obama's leadership "

as if it's Obama's fault is erroneous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:35 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,740,633 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
I'm not debating the amount....but to say , "country goes to a $1 trillion dollar deficit under Obama's leadership "

as if it's Obama's fault is erroneous.
Point taken.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:57 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,665 posts, read 3,409,975 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
No, that's based on the latest estimates that came out yesterday (I believe). These numbers are are NOT debated by Obama - and in fact the number MAY go even higher depending on the stimulus package.

Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090107/bs_nm/us_usa_budget - broken link)

Ken
Careful. . . listening to what Obama actually states is considered by some as "fortune telling." And they may be more right than they know
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:59 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,665 posts, read 3,409,975 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
. . . . The OP by insinuation was attempting is trying to argue that due to some political superiority of Gov. Palin Alaska isn't suffering from the same economic malaise as other regions of the country, we have simply been pointing out that the state of Alaska's economic health has nothing to do with political stewardship.
so the US country's economic malaise is caused by Bush and the good Alaskan economic health is not because of Palin. It's humorous to watch you guys twist in knots. . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 10:03 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,035,059 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
so the US country's economic malaise is caused by Bush and the good Alaskan economic health is not because of Palin. It's humorous to watch you guys twist in knots. . . .
Not much of a knot at all, just a clear evaluation of the facts.

PS - you will be hard pressed to find a post where I accuse Bush of causing the economic downturn on Bush, critical towards his response and policies which severely limited the possible responses, most certainly, but caused it... naw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,027 posts, read 5,532,013 times
Reputation: 1479
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
so the US country's economic malaise is caused by Bush and the good Alaskan economic health is not because of Palin. It's humorous to watch you guys twist in knots. . . .
The second part of your statement is absolutely true. Alaska's (relative) economic health has nothing to do with Palin.

However the country's crisis is not Bush's fault solely. It is a conservative crisis, which includes contributions from the Dems - like Clinton and congress. They all pushed for less regulation, lax oversight, and bad tax policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 10:48 AM
 
16 posts, read 55,177 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
Sure she put the state's plane on ebay to cut costs. Sure Obama gets a new plane and new gas guzzling limo. . . . While the country goes to a $1 trillion dollar deficit under Obama's leadership and 44 states (of 50 for you Obama followers) face budget shortfalls, six states are managing to control spending just fine. . . one of them Sarah Palin and Alaska.

Seems some just love to listen to the talk; others note the walk.
"$1 trillion dollar deficit under Obama's leadership" this happened under Obama's leadership? Sounds like a foxnews to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 11:00 AM
 
4,986 posts, read 8,481,909 times
Reputation: 3265
Reading this thread, I am almost ready to bust a nut cause I’m laughing so hard at what some folks think they “know” about Sarah Palin and Alaska – so called “knowledge” they have obviously gleaned from the MSM, the same media that is then almost universally condemned as biased and incapable of reporting facts.

The most accurate theme so far offered by some in this thread is: Alaska's (relative) economic health has nothing to do with Palin.

More accurately though, the statement should read: Alaska's (relative) economic health has prospered IN SPITE OF Palin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 11:14 AM
 
46 posts, read 24,579 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
I don't know where you guys are getting your information... Alaska is one of the most expensive places to live... it has high property taxes as well as an array of other taxes (which makes up for the lack of state income tax/sales tax)... Food and just about anything purchasable is expensive, likely due to its remote location... Its pretty expensive to live there (as well as isolated)... the main reason they don't have a large deficit is probably because they don't have a lot of people... population is a big factor when considering the budget... that's why you DO NOT compare countries to countries unless they have the same population and have the same land mass otherwise you introduce bias... but not like you guys care anyway...
That's right. 98% or more of the land in AK is owned by the Federal Gvt. Many people move to Alaska thinking they will have freedom, but they soon find out that the socialists in Wash DC have their sights on keeping it all under control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top