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.
Refusing to be sucked into a vortex of irresponsible and unsustainable spending along with the inevitable dependency it will bring, Governor Palin acted in the interest of Alaskans by declining nearly half of the borrowed money our children be forced to repay.
Moms for Sarah Palin: Governor Palin refuses 45% of Stimulus Money (http://www.momsforsarahpalin.com/2009/03/governor-palin-refuses-45-of-stimulus.html - broken link)
Declining the money is her right, but I'm having a hard time understanding why she's not declining it all. It's wrong to make future generations pay for the stimulus, but it's okay if they only have to pay for 55% of it?
Declining the money is her right, but I'm having a hard time understanding why she's not declining it all. It's wrong to make future generations pay for the stimulus, but it's okay if they only have to pay for 55% of it?
Did you actually listen to what she had to say?
Part of it could help create employment that is not dependent on further spending of this nature. She feels that expanding government beyond what Alaskans can reasonably be expected to maintain two years down the road when this borrowed money has been spent is irresponsible and a waste of money our children will be forced to repay.
I LOVE that obnoxious "Palin 2012" crystal pin!!!!! We should all get one. I hope it's oversized - looks like a battleship.
The reality of SP's noble decision:
The biggest single chunk of stimulus money that Palin is turning down is $160 million for education. There’s also $17 million in Department of Labor funds (vocational rehabilitation services, unemployment services, etc.), about $9 million for Health and Social Services and about $7 million for Public Safety. The full list and the specifics aren’t available from the governor’s budget department yet.
***
Frankly, you’d have to have your head pretty deep in the sand to not see this maneuver for what it is - a national political strategy. The national GOP loves “fiscal conservatives,” which is a bit shocking really, when you think they came into power 8 years ago with a national budget surplus and we’re now trillions in debt. But, yes, they still like to say they like fiscal conservatives. They like that talking point, and cling to it like a favorite old teddy bear. And it is this fantasy ideal of fiscal conservatism that motivates our governor to turn away the money that her “state family” needs. Think how great it will sound when she decides to throw her hat in the presidential ring. “I turned down that federal stimulus money!” (the crowds in the stadium go wild) And, unlike that “thanks but no thanks on the bridge to nowhere” talking point, this one will actually be true.
And what about Alaska? With astronomical dropout rates, incidents of domestic violence, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, violent crime, gang membership, suicide and mental illness? We don’t need that money, says Palin.
The Mudflats » Palin says, “Thanks but No Thanks” to Stimulus Money. (http://www.themudflats.net/2009/03/19/palin-says-thanks-but-no-thanks-to-stimulus-money/ - broken link)
I agree with this (actual Alaskan!) blogger's conclusions as to why SP turned down help for Alaskans to go to college - so that she's on the record for the short-memory (didnt say short bus) types when she runs in 2012.
"I share the governor's concerns about inappropriate growth of government," [Representative Mike] Hawker, [R-Anchorage,] the House Finance Committee Co-Chair, said. "However, to fully protect the state's interests, I am working with other members of House and Senate leadership to make certain that we are not rejecting federal money that could be responsibly used to support schools and communities without unsustainable government growth."
Maybe the Gov could reduce the state corporate income tax rate which is currently the fourth highest in the country. Or maybe she could reduce the amount of federal income taxes that her state received compared to how much they paid. They have been in the top ten welfare states for the past ten years.
Sadly, yes. I wish I could reclaim that eight minutes of my life.
Quote:
Part of it could help create employment that is not dependent on further spending of this nature. She feels that expanding government beyond what Alaskans can reasonably be expected to maintain two years down the road when this borrowed money has been spent is irresponsible and a waste of money our children will be forced to repay.
This doesn't answer my question. If the argument is "it's wrong to pass debt to future generations," then you can't turn around and say it's okay to pass some debt to future generations. If the latter is true, then it is not wrong to pass debt to future generations. I have no problem with her argument on the veracity and use of the monies. I just have a problem with contradictory moral claims.
Declining the money is her right, but I'm having a hard time understanding why she's not declining it all. It's wrong to make future generations pay for the stimulus, but it's okay if they only have to pay for 55% of it?
"I share the governor's concerns about inappropriate growth of government," [Representative Mike] Hawker, [R-Anchorage,] the House Finance Committee Co-Chair, said. "However, to fully protect the state's interests, I am working with other members of House and Senate leadership to make certain that we are not rejecting federal money that could be responsibly used to support schools and communities without unsustainable government growth."
Again, the vitriol is amazing. Palin is obviously a lot smarter than the liberal posters here and has read the information provided to her in studies that show that throwing money at education does not improve how or what people learn. Despite increases in education budgets (primarily by democrats), test scores have not gone up and students are not more inclined to learn. Maybe Palin understands that throwing money at the issue doesn't solve the issue. Once again, this just proves that the Democrats and Liberals are the party of money, as in controlling everyone's.
Again, the vitriol is amazing. Palin is obviously a lot smarter than the liberal posters here and has read the information provided to her in studies that show that throwing money at education does not improve how or what people learn. Despite increases in education budgets (primarily by democrats), test scores have not gone up and students are not more inclined to learn. Maybe Palin understands that throwing money at the issue doesn't solve the issue. Once again, this just proves that the Democrats and Liberals are the party of money, as in controlling everyone's.
I take it education isnt a priority for you either.
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.
