|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Sept 9, 2008 19:41:54 GMT -5
And before anyone freaks out, I said "meaningful way." Most are earmarks for Republican congressmen (put that one in your pipe). There are lots of tracking systems that amount to about nothing if you compare the total figures, average unit costs, and ground truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Sept 9, 2008 19:43:49 GMT -5
 Might as well tell em that she did indeed take the money but used it for other state expenditures - so what's her point? She has none! Just another slick line to embellish that phony maverick image. Now please dispute that fact! Hifi - Can you read? Did UF teach you anything? I already said that the money was used for other expenditures. My point was that she is exaggerating with the implication that she said no thanks to the govt's money. Get it - genius?  you're wasting your time 'deals. Ray Charles reads with more acumen than hifi. Unless of course hifi is some genius social experimenter (reply to my PM, hifi, with some substance dammit!!). |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 10, 2008 7:38:20 GMT -5
First point -- the BILLIONS of federal dollars going to Alaska every fiscal year are not tracked in any meaningful way at any level. I'm really confused by this. Why is the money going to Alaska not tracked the same way as the money going to California, New York or Massachusetts? Also, considering the federal government owns 65% of Alaska, you'd think they'd help pay for some of the stuff there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#Geography |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 10, 2008 10:44:58 GMT -5
First point -- the BILLIONS of federal dollars going to Alaska every fiscal year are not tracked in any meaningful way at any level. I'm really confused by this. Why is the money going to Alaska not tracked the same way as the money going to California, New York or Massachusetts? Also, considering the federal government owns 65% of Alaska, you'd think they'd help pay for some of the stuff there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#GeographyDon't worry about it, these are the same people that bitch and moan that, for example, more money is spent, per capita, on homeland security or transportation in places like Alaska and Montana than in New York and DC. There are certain inherent inequities due to geography and population numbers that are always going to skew the data. Alaska is going to get more federal dollars per capita because it's in the middle of nowhere and there's not a lot of people. It's a fact of life. Does having Ted Stevens and Don Young in congress for 182 years help? Of course. But that's not the whole story. Instead, lets focus on some stupid proposed bridge that only 10 people outside of the Beltway and Alaska had heard of before last week. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 10, 2008 13:20:08 GMT -5
deals, there was certainly a degree of implicit unaccountability in your earlier post. That was all I was saying. After a clarification, then I responded accordingly. Governors in more states than Alaska are in charge of allocated funds for different projects. Governors in more states than Alaska decide to not continue with a project, though first supporting it. If there is anything different in the way Palin did her duties then please post that, rather than just saying that "she behaved like a governor."
|
|
Might as well tell em that she did indeed take the money but used it for other state expenditures - so what's her point? She has none! Just another slick line to embellish that phony maverick image. Now please dispute that fact!
