Jobs? Thanks But No Thanks
Governors with presidential ambitions often spend much of their time in office trying to raise their profile and pad their resume for a future presidential run. That's to be expected, and in general, it's not a bad thing for the people of their state. Yes, these governors probably spend a little too much time in Iowa and New Hampshire, but they also tend to do things to bring positive attention to their states. Governor Mitt Romney, for instance, worked with Democrats in his state to construct a universal health care system, the first such system in the country. Though his ultimate ambitions were clear, he attempted to further them by creating a record of accomplishment as governor.
What's happening now, though, is very different. The Republican governors with presidential ambitions are tripping over each other to be the one that hoses over his own constituents the most. Take South Carolina, the state with the highest unemployment rate in the country. Its governor, Mark Sanford, is posturing like crazy with respect to federal stimulus money. He claims he will only accept it if he's allowed to use it to pay down debt. But as any economist (or person who's taken high school economics for that matter) will tell you, paying down debt is non-stimulative. The whole point of the stimulus money is to create jobs, i.e., to stimulate the economy. Using federal money to pay down debt is, unquestionably, not in the interests of the people of South Carolina. There has never been a more clear cut case of a governor putting his own political ambitions ahead of the interests of the people of his state.
Except perhaps for Sarah Palin, who has announced that she will turn down over 30% of the federal stimulus money allotted to Alaska. This is money that would have gone toward education, infrastructure, social services. It's money that would have generated jobs and helped people during hard times. And it's being turned down for one reason and one reason alone: so that three years from now, Sarah Palin can give a folksy stump speech claiming that she said "thanks but no thanks" to all that "pork from Washington." This despite the fact that Alaska receives more money from the federal government per capital than any other state (by far) and Palin herself has historically been one of the biggest offenders when it comes to earmarks.
Screwing the citizens of your own state over so that you can have a talking point is completely indefensible and if there's any justice in the world, this kind of posturing will end up harming, not helping these presidential aspirants.
What's happening now, though, is very different. The Republican governors with presidential ambitions are tripping over each other to be the one that hoses over his own constituents the most. Take South Carolina, the state with the highest unemployment rate in the country. Its governor, Mark Sanford, is posturing like crazy with respect to federal stimulus money. He claims he will only accept it if he's allowed to use it to pay down debt. But as any economist (or person who's taken high school economics for that matter) will tell you, paying down debt is non-stimulative. The whole point of the stimulus money is to create jobs, i.e., to stimulate the economy. Using federal money to pay down debt is, unquestionably, not in the interests of the people of South Carolina. There has never been a more clear cut case of a governor putting his own political ambitions ahead of the interests of the people of his state.
Except perhaps for Sarah Palin, who has announced that she will turn down over 30% of the federal stimulus money allotted to Alaska. This is money that would have gone toward education, infrastructure, social services. It's money that would have generated jobs and helped people during hard times. And it's being turned down for one reason and one reason alone: so that three years from now, Sarah Palin can give a folksy stump speech claiming that she said "thanks but no thanks" to all that "pork from Washington." This despite the fact that Alaska receives more money from the federal government per capital than any other state (by far) and Palin herself has historically been one of the biggest offenders when it comes to earmarks.
Screwing the citizens of your own state over so that you can have a talking point is completely indefensible and if there's any justice in the world, this kind of posturing will end up harming, not helping these presidential aspirants.
posted by A.L. at 10:23 AM
36 Comments:
From Benen's piece:
...Palin suddenly sees the benefit in turning down money that might help stimulate the Alaskan economy.
Two things. First off, I have doubts that Benen or anyone else from the left has a clue about what Alaska needs, or what would stimulate Alaska's economy.
Second, Benen is perpetuating a patent falsehood:
Palin has never seen a federal dollar she didn't want,...
I think the left is confusing a responsible conservative governor for what is a standard for liberal governors, Rod Blagojevich.
"responsible conservative governor"
SteveIL is an freaking idiot.
Sorry, I'm not normally a name-caller, but SteveIL is SUCH a freaking idiot I can't help myself!
Yeah, Steveil, I'm sure that jobs are totally unnecessary in the state of Alaska. After all, they get paid just to be residents, and I'm sure it's enough to pay for gasoline, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter (they probably all just go and kill caribou for meat, and of course, with global warming they don't even have to chop holes in the sea-ice to harvest seals and fish.)
And, if not, I think they can get stimulus oil free from Venezuela.
Blago's gone, by the way. Get over it. I know it's the Republican way to keep beating the corpse of an out-of-office politician for a decade or two (think Clinton), but it doesn't really impress the rest of us.
C2H50H,
Yeah, Steveil, I'm sure that jobs are totally unnecessary in the state of Alaska.
Wow. You are actually suggesting that no jobs in Alaska, or anywhere else for that matter, can be created without federal money. And I mean no jobs. Of any kind.
Tell me something: are you an employee of the federal government? Or are you an expert on things Alaskan?
Blago's gone, by the way.
Gone but not forgotten. He is the poster boy for what the left with real power is all about.
I know it's the Republican way to keep beating the corpse of an out-of-office politician for a decade or two (think Clinton), but it doesn't really impress the rest of us.
That's pretty funny. Blago got kicked out of his office after Bush left his office, and you accuse Republicans of beating a corpse? Obama is trying to make a living beating up on Bush, even though Bush is out. I didn't realize the left could change the statute of limitations on beating a corpse whenever it's convenient for them.
See, Blagojevich is the type of politician that the left loves and supports. It's why Blago got re-elected in 2006. With help from Obama.
SC is the state with the _second highest_ unemployment rate. I only know this because I am from Michigan, which is the highest.
C2H5OH: Blago's gone, by the way.
SteveIL: Gone but not forgotten. He is the poster boy for what the left with real power is all about.
SteveIL, as an Illinois resident, I wouldn't characterize Blago as "left"; arrogant, deeply corrupt, and self-serving are usually the adjectives I would use. Very similar to his predecessor, George Ryan, who you would then characterize as "left" under your definition scheme, even though he was "right".
This "left", I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fraud Guy:
George Ryan, who you would then characterize as "left" under your definition scheme, even though he was "right".
Ryan was never "right", that is, conservative. The two prior Republican governors to Ryan, Thompson and Edgar, aren't even considered all that conservative, fiscally or otherwise (although Edgar was better than Thompson). Neither were (or are) most Republican members of the Illinois General Assembly. Republicans yes, conservatives (the "right") no.
SteveIL, as an Illinois resident, I wouldn't characterize Blago as "left"; arrogant, deeply corrupt, and self-serving are usually the adjectives I would use.
Before things blew up in Blago's face, he was a typical politician from the left; he was considered "liberal" and "progressive", and had an agenda every progressive loves. The only difference between Blago and every other politician on the left that is still in office is that Blago is out of office.
Steveil,
I said: "Yeah, Steveil, I'm sure that jobs are totally unnecessary in the state of Alaska."
You replied: "Wow. You are actually suggesting that no jobs in Alaska, or anywhere else for that matter, can be created without federal money. And I mean no jobs. Of any kind."
Is the problem simple reading comprehension here, or is it that you need to make stuff up in order to find something to argue with?
As for Blago, are you pretending that dishonest, self-serving politicians are found exclusively in the Democratic party, even in Illinois?
SteveIL,
Again, this word "left", I do not think it means what you think it means:
The only difference between Blago and every other politician on the left that is still in office is that Blago is out of office.
So coservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed?
Really, Blago was bad, horribly bad, and though some politicians compete with him for that distinction, you seem to be working under this logic stream:
Conservatives are not corrupt
Politician "A" is corrupt.
Politician "A" is not a conservative.
A better construction would be:
Politicians tend to be corrupt.
Politicians tend to use whatever label that allows them to retain their power.
Those accepting the label that a politician uses on themself will, therefore, tend to be foolish.
Palin construes herself to be a small government conservative.
Palin, while in power, has accepted federal funds for her state, and also special taxes on the oil industry, then has touted the largesse from such funding sources to retain her popularity.
SteveIL accepts Palin's self-construction as a conservative, and would vote for her as a result.
SteveIL supports a left politician.
Blago was a corrupt machine politician who is described as a liberal.
Fraud Guy voted against Blago every time he could.
Fraud Guy is a conservative.
Damn you, logic.
to hell with steveil; this guy deserves no explanations. blago represents the left the same way an entire cadre, a damn macy's day parade of corrupt right wing actors. guys like steve seem so blind to their own party's repeated miss-steps, corruption, and otherwise poor performence of tired ideas, why try to explain things? let him prattle on...trying to explain things to boot-licking shills is like trying to a turtle japanese.
C2H50H:
As for Blago, are you pretending that dishonest, self-serving politicians are found exclusively in the Democratic party, even in Illinois?
Not at all. Ryan was(is) a Republican, and he's in jail. "Duke" Cunningham, a conservative Republican, is in jail. So no, I'm not saying that at all.
But look at the left, especially with the AIG situation. Obama and Pelosi and Reid slammed that stimulus (Porkulus) bill through Congress without any Republican input (3 Republicans supporting this out of 219 does not equate bipartisanship) or anyone reading it. Then Obama comes out earlier this week about his (faux) "outrage" over the AIG retention bonuses (not performance bonuses), all without context. Democrats began piling on until it was found out that the administration actually had Dodd put the bonus exemption provision in the bill that Obama signed. So what did the Dems in the House do? Pass an unconstitutional 90% tax bill on those bonuses to continue stoking their class warfare meme. Only the left would do that.
Individuals at AIG gave 3 to 1 in campaign contributions to Democrats, including Obama, than Republicans. How many have returned or donated those funds? One, maybe? And what about bonuses paid out to other Democratic supporters, like those at Fannie Mae? Franklin Raines cooked Fannie's books in order to garner nearly $100,000,000 in bonuses for himself; yet, even the penalties for his part of the Fannie fiasco was paid out of his insurance company, not himself (he got to keep it). And he ended up being an Obama campaign adviser. That would only happen on the left.
Is the problem simple reading comprehension here, or is it that you need to make stuff up in order to find something to argue with?
From the post:
Except perhaps for Sarah Palin, who has announced that she will turn down over 30% of the federal stimulus money allotted to Alaska...It's money that would have generated jobs and helped people during hard times.
Your earlier comment:
Yeah, Steveil, I'm sure that jobs are totally unnecessary in the state of Alaska.
Then I said:
You are actually suggesting that no jobs in Alaska, or anywhere else for that matter, can be created without federal money. And I mean no jobs. Of any kind.
It seemed you were trying to tie the idea that job creation would only occur with the introduction of federal dollars from Porkulus.
I would have to think a reasonably fiscally responsible governor like Palin (who has dropped the amounts for requested earmarks every year she has been Governor, usually by a fairly high percentage, something that AL didn't add in there) knows a lot more about what Alaska needs. Again I have to ask you and AL; it seems like the both of you are saying jobs will only be created in Alaska if the state accepts the federal money. I'm thinking Palin has a better idea of what is needed.
Fraud Guy:
It's Alaska's congressional delegation that gets the earmarks, not the governor. It so happens that Alaska's three longtime members of Congress had been really good at it. Gov. Murkowski was hugely responsible for having those people get those earmarks. Palin's been lowering the amount of earmark requests since she's been in office.
...special taxes on the oil industry, then has touted the largesse from such funding sources to retain her popularity.
Spare me on this one. Even a conservative like me knows taxes have to be gotten from somewhere. It so happens this was a better choice than most politicians usually come up with.
Fraud Guy voted against Blago every time he could.
Did you vote for Jim Ryan and Topinka? I held my nose to vote for Topinka, but there was no way I'd vote for Blagojevich.
Here's a cute little tidbit. According to the NYT, on the night he was elected Blago said this:
“Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, Illinois has voted for change,” he told a crowd at his victory party on election night in 2002.
Sounds familiar.
Steveil,
It's not a choice between private-industry jobs and federal jobs. Since -- in case you haven't noticed -- private-industry jobs are getting in shorter and shorter supply (and Alaska is not dramatically different in that regard), the choice is between having no job and having a federally-supported job for many people.
If that isn't clear enough for you, I don't know what is. You could also look up the definition of "non sequitur" -- you'll find your assertion listed as a classic example.
Did you know that 23 percent of Alaska workers are directly employed by the government? (The percentage for Illinois is 13, BTW.)
Take a look at the jobs in Alaska. The top 100 employers in Alaska (other than the government) are heavily involved in highly recession-sensitive businesses. They are going to suffer disproportionately in the recession. If Palin cuts state employment, she will make the pain even worse.
Turning down the federal stimulus money may, in some states, be justifiable (although I doubt it), but among the states where it is least justifiable is Alaska. Palin is just grandstanding. Not only will the legislature overturn her decision, I would bet that she is depending on that.
I don't see any evidence that you have any expertise in jobs in Alaska. In fact, I've never noticed any expertise on your part in anything.
Glad all of you are experts at running a state government. Did you ever think to look at the story behind the story? Since this "stimulus" package was written on the back of gum wrapper in the middle of the night, I doubt ANY of you know what is in it.
Now sure, states like mine (SC) are in need of immediate stimulus. But a) most of this "stimulus" is not going to stimulate any substantive change or make any more jobs available anytime soon. And b) what happens when the bill comes due and the Federal tap runs dry? You think we can sustain this kind of spending for very long?
Too bad there isn't a way to track individual tax contributions. I'd love to know when your increased tax dollars come to my state and help me. Hell, I'll even send y'all a thank you note.
If Palin or Sanford had the principles they claim, they would turn down all the Federal money. They are just trying to make headlines by taking most of it and getting publicity for the small amount they claim they will refuse. Don't take any of it and be a real right-wing hero.
SteveIL,
First, yes, the delegation obtained the earmarks, but there was nary a peep from Palin about using the funds in the state.
Yes, taxes come from somewhere, but they don't have to be accepted. I was part of a local fight against a waste of federal funds where we were told by the DHHS Director trying to sell the program ("I don't know why you are upset this purchase; it's not using state or local taxes, but federal taxes."--my rejoinder "IIRC, all of us pay federal taxes, also")
And you elide my link between the two items, which is that "small government, conservative" Palin touted the use of the funds and programs in her campaigns and public announcements to build her popularity in her state. And ms. "Conservative Values" was raking her home state for improper expenses, such as her children's travel costs, and a per diem for working from home. You know, her desire to emulate conservative icons doesn't mean that she has to redo the take on expenses of our first President.
And finally, my choices in the last two gubernatorial elections were definitely not Blago, but also not the poor Republican candidates. My votes, in order, went to Cal Skinner (Libertarian) and Richard Whitney (Green), because none of the major party candidates were anything but risible.
franklin raines a campaign advisor for obama? that must be some awesome kool aid, steve.
C2H50H:
I don't see any evidence that you have any expertise in jobs in Alaska.
I never claimed any. My point was that Palin has a helluva lot more expertise on this than Benen, AL, or you. It's still the case.
Fraud Guy:
First, yes, the delegation obtained the earmarks, but there was nary a peep from Palin about using the funds in the state.
Every year, the amount Palin requests for earmarks have dropped every year she's been in office. And Alaska's congressional delegation has put in for less in earmarks.
And ms. "Conservative Values" was raking her home state for improper expenses, such as her children's travel costs, and a per diem for working from home.
Again, spare me. You sound like Obama, the Dems, and the left ratcheting up their class warfare schtick. That was a nit. Hell, Blago was spending more in one month worth of trips from Chicago to Springfield, which were supposedly "proper" expenses, than Palin's so-called improper expenses since she's been governor.
My votes, in order, went to Cal Skinner (Libertarian) and Richard Whitney (Green), because none of the major party candidates were anything but risible.
Nothing was going to stop Blago in 2002, but any vote for Whitney or any other third-party candidate in 2006 ended up being a vote for Blagojevich. Like I said, Topinka was nothing to write home about, but this state couldn't handle anymore time with Blagojevich as governor, and events have proven me right. I congratulate you on helping get Blago re-elected.
Anonymous from SC is spot on for what Porkulus will actually do.
Steveil,
If you have no expertise on the job situation in Alaska, how do you know that Palin has any and that others do not? This is simply "argument from ignorance", and suitable only for impressing your fellow ignoramuses.
I gave you numbers and facts that you can easily check. What do you have, other than an anti-intellectual belief in the supremacy of ignorance?
You and the anonymous who claims to be from SC appear to believe, without a shred of evidence, that Sanford and Palin have expertise, but others do not. Where do they get this expertise? Surely not through merely being elected, because, if that were the case, then Obama would have the most expertise of all. Obviously, not from experience, because Palin has next to none, and Sanford isn't much better. Perhaps you'll claim that Sanford's MBA means something, but I'll remind you that MBA degrees, as our recent history amply proves, don't really mean much in the way of demonstrating expertise.
Absent any evidence that either of you have the slightest clue that you know anything about anything, I decline to accept any argument from you about the effectiveness of the stimulus effort.
C2H50H:
Absent any evidence that either of you have the slightest clue that you know anything about anything, I decline to accept any argument from you about the effectiveness of the stimulus effort.
You gave me numbers that you are using for your spin. It is blatantly obvious, because that is all the left has, spin. Besides, you can't tell me what the effectiveness of Porkulus is going to be since its effectiveness hasn't even taken place yet. But the cost to pay for it down the road will be hugely challenging.
Steveil,
I see. You don't have any numbers, so you claim the numbers I gave you were "spin." Here's a clue: numbers don't spin. They may be misinterpreted, which is why I kept them simple enough for even you to understand.
Nobody can predict the future in detail. Events that will come from nowhere may yet derail or aid in the recovery.
If you want to really get an idea of the capabilities of a person, the best way, short of waiting to see how things turn out, is to see how a person is evaluated by his or her peers. By this measure, Sanford and Palin are both disrespected profoundly, as the vast majority of their peers is not following their lead, even their fellow conservative governors.
How do you think the rest of us here think of you and your ideas?
Sanford and Jindal have stated that the mandates on unemployment insurance that are preconditions for taking the money are extremely expensive in the out-years. Does anybody have any data on whether this is true and, if so, how expensive are they really?
I found this interesting table. Per this, South Carolina, with a total grant of $544M, ranks 45th out of 51 (DC is included) in terms of stimulus dollars per unemployed worker ($2976), as of 2/15/09. Lousiana ranks 20th ($539M total, $4912/unemployed), and Alaska ranks 5th ($240M total, $9146/unemployed).
It seems plausible to me that the extra out-year burden required to fund expanded unemployment insurance in SC and LA will substantially exceed the half billion each state receives in direct aid, but I don't have the numbers. Does anybody?
As for Palin: Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a governor's responsibility to, you know, ask the feds for as much assistance as they can wrangle? Doesn't Palin's ability to pull in pork make her a more effective governor? Look, I'm no fan of this lady, but isn't it a bit--what's the word I'm looking for here?--stupid to criticize her for doing her job? Especially when there are so many substantive criticisms that you could level instead?
Regarding the rejected stimulus funds for Alaska: A substantial portion of the rejected funds is for education. Alaska has a 40% dropout rate, according to statistics. The governor's own daughter and recently prospective son-in-law are arguably part of that statistic. Perhaps it's less a case of money than it is of priorities in their case, but the fact remains that a huge number of Alaskan children are simply not getting the education they need to compete. Another big chunk of the money is for vocational rehabilitation, which sounds like Welfare, unless (as I have) you have done annual reports for Workforce Development programs which include voc rehab. VR is really something every conservative should love--it's a program designed to retrain people who, through physical disability, economics, or whatever reason, can no longer find work in their chosen field. It's a coalition of employers offering internships, states offering subsidies, Employment offices providing job search and projected job needs capabilities, and people who, rather than simply accepting that their lives as productive members of society are over, working together to find new, creative ways of entering the job market. Yes, of course there are people who "game" the system. In this economic climate, I find Palin's rejection of funds specifically targeted to help people find new ways of earning a living when their old ways have disappeared inexplicable, to say the least, and irresponsible, to be blunt. I suspect that she is herself "gaming" the system here--like several other GOP governors, she has "rejected" the funds for programs she can feel relatively certain the legislature will override her and accept. It's a win/win--she gets to look "responsible" and still get all that nice money.
C2H50H:
I see. You don't have any numbers, so you claim the numbers I gave you were "spin."
I never said the numbers you gave were spin. I said you were using the numbers as a justification for your spin.
Here are the numbers you gave in earlier comment:
Did you know that 23 percent of Alaska workers are directly employed by the government? (The percentage for Illinois is 13, BTW.)
The top 100 employers in Alaska (other than the government) are heavily involved in highly recession-sensitive businesses.
Here's the spin part from that comment:
They are going to suffer disproportionately in the recession. If Palin cuts state employment, she will make the pain even worse.
Turning down the federal stimulus money may, in some states, be justifiable (although I doubt it), but among the states where it is least justifiable is Alaska.
As you can see, I'm not disputing the numbers you provided, just your analysis. The analysis is where the spin is.
In a bit of irony, you said in your most previous comment:
Nobody can predict the future in detail. Events that will come from nowhere may yet derail or aid in the recovery.
On one hand, you say Palin not accepting the money will make things worse. On the other hand, you say nobody can predict the future (which I agree with). You can't have it both ways. And you aren't showing me that you know more about what is going on in Alaska (and neither are Benen or AL) than Palin, who lives there. Which has been my point from the beginning.
I'm sure there are a few other private industries that do better in a recession than most others, but most industries will be affected negatively by it.
Now if you want to see numbers that are spin, look at Bodie P's most recent comment:
Alaska has a 40% dropout rate, according to statistics.
Per the Anchorage Daily News, the latest figures that came out of the Dept. of Education show that Alaska's dropout rate is 8%, nowhere near 40%:
Alaska's dropout rate, at 8 percent, was double the national average in the 2005-2006 school year, according to the latest figures available from the U.S. Department of Education.
Here's an amusing fact: those numbers reflect dropout rates before Palin became governor.
In the piece, there are some who are guessing what will happen in the future:
38 percent of today's ninth-graders will have no high school diploma 10 years from now, according to the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education.
Maybe that is where Bodie P got his/her 40% number, although it is obviously not even close to being right. Bodie P then goes on to make this "analysis":
In this economic climate, I find Palin's rejection of funds specifically targeted to help people find new ways of earning a living when their old ways have disappeared inexplicable, to say the least, and irresponsible, to be blunt.
Here we have a case where false numbers are being used to slam Palin. Spin.
By this measure, Sanford and Palin are both disrespected profoundly, as the vast majority of their peers is not following their lead, even their fellow conservative governors.
That's funny. Assuming that's true, which I highly doubt, governors of other states can't vote for Palin. More spin.
How do you think the rest of us here think of you and your ideas?
It's obvious you and many others aren't thrilled with what I say. That's alright; it's a free country.
Steveil,
Which "drop-out rate" are we talking about here? Are we talking about the yearly drop-out rate, which, for Alaska as a whole, is around 10 percent, or are we talking about the overall failure-to-graduate from high-school rate, which, for alaska, hovers around 33-40 percent in recent years?
It's obvious you have no idea there's a difference.
Needless to say, this makes your arguments less than convincing.
As for the sensitivity of Alaska's economy to recession, you might ask yourself how oil prices, seafood prices, and tourism are going to hold up in the immediate future.
C2H50H:
Which "drop-out rate" are we talking about here? Are we talking about the yearly drop-out rate, which, for Alaska as a whole, is around 10 percent, or are we talking about the overall failure-to-graduate from high-school rate, which, for alaska, hovers around 33-40 percent in recent years?
It's obvious you have no idea there's a difference.
You are just too funny. In an earlier comment you said:
Is the problem simple reading comprehension here, or is it that you need to make stuff up in order to find something to argue with?
My comprehension has been spot on this whole thread. However, you make a habit of doing what you accuse me of (you are projecting), as you just did in replying to my last comment.
Bodie P said, "Alaska has a 40% dropout rate, according to statistics." Via the ADN, the Dept. of Education said the dropout rate is 8%. If there is a lack of comprehension here, it isn't coming from me.
As for the sensitivity of Alaska's economy to recession, you might ask yourself how oil prices, seafood prices, and tourism are going to hold up in the immediate future.
I don't know. I'm not the expert on Alaska, and don't claim to be. That is the claim the left makes, especially those that don't live in Alaska, that the left knows more about Alaska than the current governor of that state.
Steveil,
It's now obvious, by your compounding it, that you have no clue what the relationship is between the yearly drop-out rate and the percentage of those who, 10 years after completing 9th grade, have not completed high school.
Given your displayed confidence in Palin's ability to run Alaska, I'm surprised you haven't moved there. They have lots of jobs available, according to the state web site. Most are in government, of course, but you could find another once you got there.
We "left" may not know the best for Alaska, but we do understand that it matters a lot less to a worker who pays his or her salary than that there is a salary. That means that stimulus money spent in our states is better than no stimulus money. This is not a difficult concept, except for people whose ideology blinds them to the obvious.
Coincidentally, I once did have a job offer in Anchorage. I took another in the lower 48 upon the reflection that, if things in Alaska "went south", the other pickings up there would be slim and none.
A wise choice, as it turned out, because the place I would have worked has not prospered.
C2H50H:
It's now obvious, by your compounding it, that you have no clue what the relationship is between the yearly drop-out rate and the percentage of those who, 10 years after completing 9th grade, have not completed high school.
You're apparent "wisdom":
Coincidentally, I once did have a job offer in Anchorage. I took another in the lower 48 upon the reflection that, if things in Alaska "went south", the other pickings up there would be slim and none.
A wise choice, as it turned out, because the place I would have worked has not prospered.
does not seem to extend to what I commented on. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are deliberately twisting what I say in order to make yourself look "smart".
We "left" may not know the best for Alaska, but we do understand that it matters a lot less to a worker who pays his or her salary than that there is a salary. That means that stimulus money spent in our states is better than no stimulus money. This is not a difficult concept, except for people whose ideology blinds them to the obvious.
Actually, it is the left's ideology that is blind to the obvious. It is also the left's ideology to deliberately mislead when times are like they are now in order to justify their very real and rampant curbing of real liberty for the whole country (which doesn't even compare to the liberties that weren't curbed by the Bush administration over the prior eight years).
It is the left's ideology that is blind to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are a lot smarter than the left would make them out to be. They understand that money from the state always comes at a high price to their liberty and individuality, something that is completely contradictory to the idealogy of the left. Don't even try to claim the opposite. It is the left that has implemented hate speech laws and tries to say fair speech is the same as free speech (it isn't); it is the left that routinely violates the 2nd Amendment; it is the left that routinely twists the meanings of the 5th, 8th 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments (Kelo, Roper, Roe).
Given your displayed confidence in Palin's ability to run Alaska, I'm surprised you haven't moved there.
As I've gotten older, I've become less tolerant of Chicago winters. Forget Alaska.
Steveil,
Now you're just displaying your delusions.
Bye.
i am always a little more than surprised when rightys (in this case steveil)start with the worries over the constitution and individual liberties. can you say patriot act steve?
can you say patriot act steve?
What's your point? Both the Patriot Act and Porkulus passed with very little debate. However, the Patriot Act passed with by a huge, bipartisan margin; besides, the nation finally recognized it was (and still is) at war.
Porkulus was a Democrat-only deal that, in my opinion, will do absolutely nothing to resolve the recession; thanks to Porkulus and lying by Democrats in the administration and Congress, the House passed a bill that is a complete violation of this clause of Article I, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Like I said earlier, what the left does to wreck liberty in this country doesn't compare to the alleged curbing of liberties by the Bush administration.
Steveil conveniently omits that the bill he complains about passed with an even larger bipartisan margin than the PA.
It's all selective perception with him. But even among right-wingers, Steveil is especially oblivious to his own ideologically-induced blindness. Most of them are capable of feeling shame when their egregious errors are pointed out.
A correction: the "tax AIG executive bonus" act passed by 328 to 93, while the PA originally passed by 357 to 66. Its reauthorization was, however, passed by a margin of only 2 votes, which is what I should have made clear.
there really is no point to arguing with steveil or others like him. why try to explain or reason with an unreasonable person? right wingers have faith, dogmatic belief. period. they are factose intolerant.
C2H50H:
Steveil conveniently omits that the bill he complains about passed with an even larger bipartisan margin than the PA.
A correction: the "tax AIG executive bonus" act passed by 328 to 93,...
Just so you know, when I refer to Porkulus, I'm talking about the stimulus bill, H.R. 1, which led to the second bill, the one you are talking about, the executive bonus tax bill. Porkulus was a Democrat-only bill.
The unconstitutional executive bonus tax bill was definitely bipartisan, a shameful act by all those, including Republicans, that voted for it.
Anonymous:
right wingers have faith, dogmatic belief. period. they are factose intolerant.
As opposed to whom, those on the dogmatic and intolerant left?
Anonymous,
I don't hope to convince Steveil of much of anything. He's perfected the right-wing art of pretending not to lose an argument by simply refusing to admit it when he's wrong. Like many on the right, he's absorbed some of the psychobabble lingo, such as "projection", "dogmatic", "blinded by ideology", and he throws it back (without understanding the terms) at those who accuse him of these things, much like a monkey in the zoo throws feces at the people who laugh at his antics.
Still, education is the only hope for the ignorant, and you cannot educate if you do not communicate. It's sad that the effort so often ends in a spewing of right-wing cant, but even that can be amusing, in a darkly ironic sort of way.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home