Comments

Power Wagon wrote on Jun 20, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Cleary, somebody doesn't have a clue how the federal vs state governments operate, federal vs state government operations, taxes, money spent etc. "To Rex" probably catches a headline or two on MSNBC or lets somebody else tell him/her what to think without taking the time or making the effort to educate him/herself. Never a good idea;...you end up broadcasting for the world to see that you're clueless. "




To Rex wrote on Jun 19, 2009 8:50 PM:

" Oh you're so cute! Do you need a hug? The federal government purchased Alaska. They let people like you live there out of the kindness of the "feds" heart. Nuff said. "




to jp wrote on Jun 17, 2009 3:17 PM:

" "Stand up natives and claim what is yours?" You mean like the right to over-fish and 'subsistence' hunt (wherein game is frequently wasted or sold)? Or how about fat oil profits wherein somebody else does all the work and they collect large sums of money for nothing? (Removing any incentive to get an education, a job, or much else besides blow it all on toys and substance abuse). How about they 'stand up' and end the cycle that results in the drug abuse and domestic violence? "




jp wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:47 PM:

" if the united states purchased Alaska, who did they purchase it from? the people who mis-represented ownership of it? or the indigenous people who still live here, and are the true owners of this land?

Stand up Natives, and claim what is yours! "




Palmer Farm wrote on Jun 16, 2009 8:01 PM:

" Again, this nonsense about 'Alaska being a socialist state' and such because of the federal money allocated here is nothing but pure bunk; a twisted manipulation of the truth that was introduced during the campaign and which evidently some people swallowed and actually believe. We are the largest state with the most amout of federal land. We have the 2nd smallest population. OF COURSE the fed money spent here vs. the population percentage is going to be skewed! Alaska has a budget SURPLUS due to oil revenue and a not blowing it all on social programs and such! "




jp wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:18 PM:

" Oops is definately showing her idiocracy in this blog!!!
Keep it going, this is funny! "




to Oops wrote on Jun 16, 2009 2:46 PM:

" A gargantuan chuck of Alaska doesn't belong to Alaska...it's Federal Land. That was part of the deal during the move from territory to statehood; the Feds retain control over a ridiculous amount of the state. You really need to read up before you blog.
So if the Feds are 'dumping money' into Alaska, when they OWN such a huge part of the state, what's your complaint? Or perhaps you think we should have the most federal land and not collect any benefits from the feds? Where are you from, anyway? Just curious... "




Rex in Wasilla wrote on Jun 16, 2009 1:38 PM:

" to Oops-I keep reading all the snivels about federal money sent to Alaska. To those who complain, OK so to stop what you consider a handout, let us call it RENT for all the millions of acres taken up by Federal Refuges, National Parks, and Federal wilderness areas. Then there is the federal miliitary bases with the uncounted acres they useexclusively that leave toxic spent armaments, that have not been cleaned up.
So what would be fair annual rent? Maybe a thousand an acre? cheap at twice the price. Don't wanna pay- then shut up "




Oops wrote on Jun 16, 2009 8:07 AM:

" Alaska is a state, this is the United States, the US Government purchased Alaska, we don't own anything we manage it. Palin keeps screwing up and we won't have oil revenue either! "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:35 AM:

" No, Polly, OIL REVENUE is what built Alaska. OIL REVENUE is what has made Alaska the wealthiest state in the union. Look it up. The Federal dollars we receive? Take a look sometime at how much of Alaska is owned by the Feds. "




Polly wrote on Jun 15, 2009 8:02 AM:

" offsoapstone wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:30 AM: Dan the lower 48 needs Alaska way more than we need the lower. -- I disagree, the lower 48 can do just fine without us. Alaska would suffer if it were on its own. Hey, federal dollars from Stevens is what built Alaska. "




Palmer Farm wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:57 PM:

" 1) Alaska is the wealthiest state in the Union...by far..due to oil revenue
2) Alaska enjoys the largest budget surplus than any other state in the nation

This fantasy of 'Alaska being a socialist state' and receiving handouts from the Feds etc etc was creating by Keith Olbermann during the campaign and was swiftly proven false and scoffed at. Yet there are those of you that can't or won't find the truth out for yourselves. So you parrot what you are told, prove those that call you 'sheep' correct, and make fools of yourselves in the process. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 14, 2009 8:28 PM:

" I always get a kick out of lower 48 clowns regurgitating what they saw on a commentary on MSNCB or The New York Times as 'facts' and gloating over thier pseudo-intelligence. Case in point is the fun little fairy tale about "how much money the Feds pumps in to Alaska" etc etc. A half-truth that leads to a different conclusion is STILL a lie in my book. Look up the rest of that little tale and then see how smug you feel. Here's a hint where to start: look at how MUCH of Alaska is OWNED by the Feds! "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 14, 2009 8:26 PM:

" to Oops;
Interesting rebuttal. Aside from the fact that you didn't offer a single thing in relation to my post, I mean. You might as well have responded with a technical description of the inner workings of a zambonie. "




Dan Grant wrote on Jun 14, 2009 12:03 PM:

" OOPS Sorry I meant Iowa. I knew it was one of those dimal states whose name ends in a vowel. "




Dan Grant wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:57 AM:

" All you Red State conservatives are living off the tax dollars paid by the Blue States. You too Idaho. You get back $1.20 for every dollar you send to the Federal Government. You can't be called a conservative when you are being helped out by NJ and all the other Blue States but you can be called hypocrites. "




offsoapstone wrote on Jun 14, 2009 11:30 AM:

" Let's see palin wants us to be free and Independent from Washington not a bad idea. She turns down over 28 million for energy relief, but asked for federal disaster aid for the flooding along the yukon. while we sit on billions of dollars in savings accounts. I'll call that just a little bit hypocritical actually alot hypocritical. She should not ask for help from the feds that the state can pay for period. Now to Dan Grant comment Dan the lower 48 needs Alaska way more than we need the lower 48. "




disenchanted in Wasilla wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:57 AM:

" What i would like to know is if we are going to have to pay this money back...remember it is part of a stimulus package that will have to be repaid. If we refuse this "hand out" won't we still have to repay it, in the years to come, like we have to repay the rest. It doesn't make sense to refuse money that we will be paying back anyways. "




Independent. wrote on Jun 14, 2009 9:13 AM:

" Alaska has vast natural resources that by the way the State has ownership of. Our population is very small considering the size of our state. I have listened for years that if we didn't re elect Uncle Ted all of those millions of Federal dollars would go away. So wake up Alaska, we are the most Socialists State in the Union. We take in far more Federal money than we send back in taxes. If you are going to oppose this administration for something at least know what the heck you are talking about. "




Oops wrote on Jun 14, 2009 8:04 AM:

" Power Wagon - OH WE'VE LEARNED! We have a bully, vindictive, lying, cheating governor. If AK needs a instigator we got one! Maverick Palin is but she acts like the horses @ss. If you're gonna think outside the box you better know what you're doing. Palin's pipeline sold us out just to get her credit, we've already lost control over it now. She approved EXXON!! ya know that dirty name that left Alaskan soil and waters polluted, fish and fowl dead and our citizens livelihood gone. They're BACK!!!!! Thanks Palin you failed us. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 13, 2009 2:17 PM:

" A perfect example of the difference between a conservative vs liberal government;
When Alaska was making money, it didn't spend it. It saved. It didn't blow it on warm fuzzy social programs. California blew every dollar on social programs. Now Alaska enjoys a surplus in the billions and Palin still wants to cut spending. California wants to fix their problem with tax hikes.
And yet, liberals look at conservatives as 'being in the way of fixing it' even though they saw this coming. California is looked at as 'sophisticated' and Alaska has that 'dumb' Palin.
Dumb means never learning.. "




Shane Vander Hart wrote on Jun 13, 2009 11:32 AM:

" Just because the other 49 states didn't turn down the money means Alaska shouldn't either? What kind of logic is that? Not to mention it just isn't based in reality. There were several governors who turned it down to have their legislators do an end around them to accept the money. The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Governor Mark Sanford to accept the money.

I tell you what, I live in Iowa, and I'd trade your governor for ours any day of the week. "




Dan Grant wrote on Jun 13, 2009 5:02 AM:

" The people of Alaska have to be kidding. They already get back about $1.80 for every $1.00 they send to Washington and the people of my State help to give them that welfare. We get back about $.60 for every dollar. Someday Alaska may be able to stand on their own and brag about their fierce independence but not when they are living on the "Charity" of the lower 48. Take the money just don't insult the rest of us. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 12, 2009 12:10 PM:

" The 2nd Amendment means 'tripping over firearms'?! Wow! Yes indeed, clearly you are confused! Guess that explains how Kennedy gets elected year after year! Is that how they convince liberals to strip rights away? By convincing the populace over there that firearms represent a tripping hazard? Sounds more like an issue with house-keeping! LOL "




Jim from Boston wrote on Jun 12, 2009 9:44 AM:

" My limited freedoms? You mean my freedoms are limited because I can walk around my place without tripping over guns and ammo everywhere?

I'm confused by your statement. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 10, 2009 11:11 AM:

" How're things way, way down there in little Boston, Jim? Enjoying your limited freedoms, traffic, etc.? Hey, I look forward to the day you actually know what you're talking about. It'll make for more serious conversation. "




Jim from Boston wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:04 AM:

" I thought Sister Sarah needed the swag to build a six lane highway to Nome?

Something to benefit all Alaskans. "




To Idiot wrote on Jun 8, 2009 8:24 PM:

" Appropriate pen name....you haven't a clue, nor do you want to understand....just grab the money today and deal (or not) with the facts later. "




to idiot wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:50 PM:

" perfect choice of blog name, given your post.

Yes indeed, when the rest of the foolish are lining up with thier hands out and not thinking of the future, why not jump on the bandwagon and join them, eh? Better to all be good, complacent sheep and join the rest of the mindless herd! "




Idiot wrote on Jun 8, 2009 5:08 PM:

" Sarah is foolish to give up those funds. Sure they are our tax dollars. Now some other state will squander them. Thanks a lot Governor, you're a real bright bulb...not "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:09 PM:

" Ed;
Huh. Interesting. Entertaining. Thanks for lightening up my coffee break.

OK, back to reality... "




EdwardfromAZ wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:34 AM:

" Amazing SP followers cant see past their nose.

You already have Codes and staff to monitor. The changes if any are small and basically insignificant.

Further, the pay back is prob 4-5 yerars, cost of improves efficiency vs reduced heating costs.

Think with something besides Sarah's brain. Her veto is not about you, it is about her DC asperations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 "




EdwardfromAZ wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:13 PM:

" Why not use technology and have a "Blackberry" meeting to see if there is sufficient support for the override. Now how economical would that be. Shoot if Sarah can govern with her Blackberry, they the Legislature can reconvene with theirs. "




Rex in Wasilla wrote on Jun 7, 2009 5:02 PM:

" Whose opinion- Read this garbage with real intrest-nice to see the opinion follows the intro are you really dumb enough to advocate for accepting this money just because "every else is doing it"? Also noticed the writer did not have the nerve to put their name on this mess, can't say I blame them. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 7, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Oh, by all means...let's line up with the rest of the sheep and sell our soul for an easy hand-out. Then, when the federal money is gone and we have to come up with the money ourselves to keep the same spending pace (which we won't be able to), we can all pin the blame on the governor, or the legislature, or big business....anyone but ourselves, of course! "




Wondering wrote on Jun 7, 2009 12:29 PM:

" Can all of those who have the votes, legislators and the governor, all certify that they have actually read and understand this package? If so, let them tell us their thoughts on the subject. When all in a position of power can tell us they have actually read and understand the issue, then is the time for them to act, but until that happens, they should read and think before they attack those with an opposing view. "




Larry Wood wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:57 AM:

" I have to side with Sarah on this one.
What would the State do with the money, other than squander it?
If there are strings attached, $28M could become a drop in the bucket when compared to the future obligations incurred.
Too, federal money?
What is federal money, other than our taxes?
Sarah was right to refuse the money. "