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.
Well, I had the pleasure this evening of spending some time with Don Young and his wife....time well spent.
I hope for all those out there that are unwilling to give back federal funds to Alaska after all we contribute to the lower 48, that some day our wells dry up, and our money stops flowing your way. I for one would be perfectally content to pay for our own infrastructure , bridges and all, and stop having to pay our of our pockets for projects down south!
I think we should build the gas line from the North Slope to Valdez (Port Authority Plan), and sell our LNG to Japan....pay down some of the National Debt, and let the lower 48 pay through the nose for the gas as well....then we can afford to build any bridge we want....save ALASKAN lives instead of having them commuting on the Knik Road & the GLEN hwy!
So, who is running against Don Young or maybe Stevens? The more I read the original post, the more the suspicious I become relating to it. The person who posted it does not have to be from "The Blue Ridge Mountains" or whatever he indicated, but right here form Alaska. Could the person be involved with the political campaign of the Democrat (or whatever he is) from Los Anchorage...the one who signed to Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun letter and then changed his mind? What's his name, "Baggage, Baggige"?
Anyway, I believe that this post belongs to the Political Forum.
NO, I have nothing to do with the campaign of the challenger. From what I've read, Young has a stiff fight in the primaries; whether thats over I have no idea. I will be contributing to his opponent in the general however.
Well, I had the pleasure this evening of spending some time with Don Young and his wife....time well spent.
I hope for all those out there that are unwilling to give back federal funds to Alaska after all we contribute to the lower 48, that some day our wells dry up, and our money stops flowing your way. I for one would be perfectally content to pay for our own infrastructure , bridges and all, and stop having to pay our of our pockets for projects down south!
I think we should build the gas line from the North Slope to Valdez (Port Authority Plan), and sell our LNG to Japan....pay down some of the National Debt, and let the lower 48 pay through the nose for the gas as well....then we can afford to build any bridge we want....save ALASKAN lives instead of having them commuting on the Knik Road & the GLEN hwy!
Indeed. If you're willing to give up all federal funds to achieve this, by all means, be my guest. IF, you're also willing to have accountability of funds for necessary infrastructure, then go right ahead. Another poster, defended Young for bringing funds to villages far from the beaten path. Though I don't wish to subsidize anyone, especially those unable to generate revenue to pay back that investment, the human factor may be too much to ignore. And to glitch, we are running an empire far from our shores with men and military bases and equipment overseas. Perhaps we should look to shut some of those installations down within our own borders...
WE pay directly into the Social Security system, and we are entitled to receive benefits upon Retirement or Disability, to include subsidized health care insurance (to account for inflation).
The people haven't paid directly into the Social Security system since the Democrats diverted those funds in 1968 to pay for LBJ's "Great Society" and "War On Poverty." Every penny that is paid toward Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid goes directly into the General Fund and is spent just like any other tax today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
Now, I do accept that some people do abuse the SSI & Medicaid systems (having never put any money into the system), but retirees and SSDI claimants have paid into the system and are entitled to get their money back. The debt created by this system is because the Federal government borrowed against it and improperly invested the income (and the fact that there are now more "boomers" collecting by it than X & Y'ers working to pay into it).
Someone at age 65 retiring today, and receiving their Social Security entitlement, will have completely exhausted their entitlement, plus interest, within the first 5 years of receiving benefits. Social Security payments do not stop when you have reached the end of your entitlement. After all your entitlements and interest have been paid to you, your Social Security checks continue to arrive only now it is welfare, not an entitlement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
I'm sure that those same "socialist programs" equally benefit Alaskan residents as well... unless you don't agree that many people in the state collect federally subsidized payments for welfare and WIC, etc. I'm all for cutting these programs... right after I get all the money that I paid into them back!
I'm sure you are right, and I agree that all federal socialist programs should be eliminated. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to spend a single penny on socialist programs, and that includes education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
If you really want to look at why we have such a horrible national debt, you might want to try looking at the fact that America imports more than we export, we have more money so we buy more things on credit (often to other countries), we federally subsidize many industries that wouldn't need subsidization at all if they weren't centralized or being run in archaic inefficient ways... that's where the big chunks of our national debt is coming from, the "socialist programs" you mention don't even scratch the surface in comparison.
The National Debt has to do with what the government overspends, and has absolutely nothing to do with the economy. Two-thirds of the publically held portion of the public debt can be traced back to the 1960s when the Democrat controlled Congress "borrowed" our Social Security entitlement to pay for even more socialist programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
YOU are mistaken. Any citizen of the United States may directly contact and petition any member of the federal representative body with any suggestion or grievance. You are not required to communicate only with and through the elected senators or representatives of your state, although that is encouraged. While it is generally considered poor form, it's also entirely valid and legal to petition support directly from residents of a state that has electoral power over a representative you find aggregious.
True, you can contact anyone in Congress you want and complain. For that matter, you can also go find a homeless person and complain to them and it will have about the same effect as complaining to someone in government who doesn't represent you. If your purpose is only to complain, then I suppose it doesn't matter to whom you complain. However, if the purpose of your complaint is to try and get a perceived problem resolved, then it behooves you to make your complaint with someone who will actually listen and do something about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
At least, by your definition, I'm entitled to have a small say in what goes on in Alaska since I have lived there longer than a year and qualified as a resident (voted and got my check and everything) although I am not currently living there. I also own land there and will be returning shortly.
As someone who has lived in Alaska for at least one year, your opinion will carry more weight among other Alaskans than someone who has never been to Alaska.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
And I'm not a Socialist, no matter what you might say, think or imply... I just happen to see the situation from a different perspective. You have the right to your perspective and opinion... I'll even fight to defend that right. But I have the equal right to mine and will fight to defend it as well. I don't go around bashing people as a general rule... I really don't care enough about politics to get myself worked up about it. I don't believe in propoganda or statistics... so you can't accuse me of that either, although when you live in a glass house you really should mind throwing stones!
It isn't what I said, but rather what you said that makes you a socialist, or worse. Only socialists or communists believe that we are all responsible for one another, and therefore require an oppressive and intrusive nanny state in order to take care of us from craddle to grave.
When did I ever accuse you of bashing people, using propaganda, or statistics? You obviously have me confused with someone else.
It's interesting...
I'm sitting at home reading through this thread, and I'm realizing that I'm completely confused by what you mean when you use the term Socialist and Communist. To quote "I do not think that word means what you think it means".
I know precisely what it means, which is why I used the terms. Perhaps your confusion arises from your lack of understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Part of your argument is that Alaska should be left alone from the lower 48, but equally the lower 48 should subsidize Alaska for infrastructure improvements, roads, bridges etc. How does this compare to say a Government handout, you know someone else earns the money to support you? This is generally considered a upstanding member of the Socialist charter. I'm equally confused by this stance as well Federal Spending is ok just keep out of our Government, well that's going to work sure, I'm positive that the State Representatives are going to be A-Ok with that one.
You have misstated my argument and my position, deliberately I suspect. I said that lower-48ers have no say in how Alaskans manage Alaska, any more than Alaskans have a say in how Californians manage California. One has to be rather arrogant to presume to tell others how to manage their state when they don't even live in the state.
Alaska subsidizes the federal projects in other states, but suddenly it becomes a bad thing for Alaska to be treated the same as any other state? That comes across as rather hypocritical. If the lower-48 states receive federal funding for their state infrastructure, then why should Alaska be singled out and denied those very same federal funds?
Now if you want to cut ALL federal funding to all 50 states, I would support such a move. For those who have no problem receiving federal funds for their own state, but don't think Alaska should receive any federal funding, I will continue to point out their obvious hypocrisy.
Thankfully, Alaska has excellent senior representation in Congress with Rep. Don Young and Sen. Stevens. They make certain that Alaska receives equal treatment and will ensure the federal dollars continues to flow into Alaska just like the representatives of every other state is doing for their state.
Only socialists or communists believe that we are all responsible for one another, and therefore require an oppressive and intrusive nanny state in order to take care of us from craddle to grave.
Ok, I think I see where the discrepancy is... I believe that at an INDIVIDUAL level we are all responsible and accountable because we are the same species living on the same planet. BUT I absolutely do not, in any way shape or form, believe that an oppressive or intrusive government is required (or even capable) of taking care of us from cradle to grave. I believe that we individually should be responsible for taking care of our selves and our loved ones, our sick or disabled, and our communities (whether that community is local, state, national or global) and being accountable for our actions to those same entities (to include making reparations for exploitation)... we, as individuals, not through or by a government (or religious) intervention or dictate. The government's purpose should only be to provide a loose framework of communication protocols, a high-level code of agreement and a venue for conflict resolution... which I think we both agree is not what our governments are doing for us anymore (if they ever did). Whether the position is Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Capitalist or Socialist, or something in the middle or completely off the map... the current government (at all levels) is not functioning in the best interests of the people and is being overly proscriptive and invasive... it's just how, to whom and in what areas that invasion occurs that determines the position. The government is always going to tax us, and always going to spend our money on things other than directly on us.
And to glitch, we are running an empire far from our shores with men and military bases and equipment overseas. Perhaps we should look to shut some of those installations down within our own borders...
You clearly do not know the meaning of "empire." The US has not added any new territory since the end of the Spanish/American war.
As to the number of military bases in Alaska, perhaps if your representatives paid less attention to the leaf-lickers and built a few military bases in the lower-48 there wouldn't be a need for so many military bases in Alaska.
Glitch: Something else the person above fails to understand is that 88% of Alaska's land is owned by the Federal Government.
I didn't want to get into how Alaska was divided up by the feds, because I feared it would just add to their confusion, but you are right. The vast majority of the federal funds that is spent in Alaska goes to federal entities in Alaska, and only a very small percentage goes to the state or the people.
You clearly do not know the meaning of "empire." The US has not added any new territory since the end of the Spanish/American war.
That must be why we have troops stationed in over 135 countries! Silly me.
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.
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.
