PDA

View Full Version : Alaska ranks #1 in taxes paid per resident and #1 in gov spending per resident



Mr772
09-09-2008, 12:04 PM
Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said, "No, thanks," to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said, "Yes, please," until this project became a symbol and political albatross.


Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 12:23 PM
I know she is not the end all be all, I found that out within a few days, as I have said before, I do not trust most politicians. I believe she has come around since the "bridge to nowhere", and I think she saw the error of her ways.

My personal candidate is long out of it, you have questioned the intelligence of people now being behind McCain/Palin, well I question (in turn) your intelligence for Obama being the candidate of change when it was very evident to me Ron Paul was.

What we have now is a decision between these two candidates, and to me it is an easy one. I know all the bad on Palin, it does not even come close to the ton of stuff that really bother me on Obama.

I also believe all of this continuous bashing has done nothing but energized the base, and her poll numbers keep climbing, so I guess keep it up.

Just one little question though, did she turn Alaska (if this is even true) into the highest taxed state, or did she take it over that way, you already tell us she has no experience right? Has a pretty high approval rating hmmm.

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 12:30 PM
I don't have the time to check this out, but I wanted to google highest taxed state which I did, and came away with this site, you put in Alaska, and it comes out to be the LEAST TAXED STATE???????

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/440.html

Did I miss something??? Unless I did, that is a real fine article you have there 772

MDFINFAN
09-09-2008, 12:38 PM
I know she is not the end all be all, I found that out within a few days, as I have said before, I do not trust most politicians. I believe she has come around since the "bridge to nowhere", and I think she saw the error of her ways.

My personal candidate is long out of it, you have questioned the intelligence of people now being behind McCain/Palin, well I question (in turn) your intelligence for Obama being the candidate of change when it was very evident to me Ron Paul was.

What we have now is a decision between these two candidates, and to me it is an easy one. I know all the bad on Palin, it does not even come close to the ton of stuff that really bother me on Obama.

I also believe all of this continuous bashing has done nothing but energized the base, and her poll numbers keep climbing, so I guess keep it up.

Just one little question though, did she turn Alaska (if this is even true) into the highest taxed state, or did she take it over that way, you already tell us she has no experience right? Has a pretty high approval rating hmmm.

P4311, you and I agree on Ron Paul, interesting how both of us can go from him to the choices we made afterwards....but for change, Obama is farthest away from Bush of the 2 canidates left...I don't know what Obama has done personally to you, but he's the best example of change of the 2 choices left..

For the base to be energize with the same canidate at the top of the ticket makes no sense logically.. and I still think the pick is a curious one, especially since she didn't know tax payers weren't behind Fannie and Freddie..that's scary to think she'd be a heart beat away.. how much does she not know about our gov't...oh well it doesn't matter you guys are hell bent in putting her that close..it doesn't matter..I'm just scared for our country...2 people who don't know the economics of our country on one ticket and that's what you guys want..amazing..we reward the last 8 years with 4 more, and don't tell me McCain won't be bush..reread his website and tell me the difference in policies..not the rhetoric, the on paper facts says it all.:shakeno:

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 12:57 PM
2 people who don't know the economics of our country on one ticket and that's what you guys want..amazing

Oh boy.....forgive me MD but I couldn't resist the temptation to point this out. The temptation was just too great and I am only human.

Does a one term Senator and a Washington Lifer who is known for foreign policy experience make them the authority on the economy?

I mean Really!

MDFINFAN
09-09-2008, 01:16 PM
Oh boy.....forgive me MD but I couldn't resist the temptation to point this out. The temptation was just too great and I am only human.

Does a one term Senator and a Washington Lifer who is known for foreign policy experience make them the authority on the economy?

I mean Really!

When you spend your life on economic issues it does.....

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 01:27 PM
When you spend your life on economic issues it does.....And who does that?

Mr772
09-09-2008, 01:46 PM
What we have now is a decision between these two candidates, and to me it is an easy one. I know all the bad on Palin, it does not even come close to the ton of stuff that really bother me on Obama.

Wow, she has been in the public spotlight for all of a couple of weeks and now you claim to know all the bad on her. That is quite impressive. Can I use you as a reference in the future when I need to run a background check on someone?? :D

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 01:48 PM
Wow, she has been in the public spotlight for all of a couple of weeks and now you claim to know all the bad on her. That is quite impressive. Can I use you as a reference in the future when I need to run a background check on someone?? :D


How about back up what you posted as fact above, we will start out with that.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 01:59 PM
I know she is not the end all be all, I found that out within a few days, as I have said before, I do not trust most politicians. I believe she has come around since the "bridge to nowhere", and I think she saw the error of her ways.

My personal candidate is long out of it, you have questioned the intelligence of people now being behind McCain/Palin, well I question (in turn) your intelligence for Obama being the candidate of change when it was very evident to me Ron Paul was.

What we have now is a decision between these two candidates, and to me it is an easy one. I know all the bad on Palin, it does not even come close to the ton of stuff that really bother me on Obama.

I also believe all of this continuous bashing has done nothing but energized the base, and her poll numbers keep climbing, so I guess keep it up.

Just one little question though, did she turn Alaska (if this is even true) into the highest taxed state, or did she take it over that way, you already tell us she has no experience right? Has a pretty high approval rating hmmm.


Do you mean to contradict yourself. Ron Paul is not a choice for this election. What makes you think I would not support him?

Making the wrong decisions can be just as easy as making the right ones, my choice is an easy one as well. I would support the old McCain with no reservation. The new McCain has changed almost all of his core stances to align himself with the same people that have gotten our nation into the mess we are in today. Can you not see that he has changed his stance on almost every important issue??

He is being steered by the Rove politics of the past while telling you he is going to fix Washington are you going to fall for it again?

ohall
09-09-2008, 02:00 PM
P4311, you and I agree on Ron Paul, interesting how both of us can go from him to the choices we made afterwards....but for change, Obama is farthest away from Bush of the 2 canidates left...I don't know what Obama has done personally to you, but he's the best example of change of the 2 choices left..

For the base to be energize with the same canidate at the top of the ticket makes no sense logically.. and I still think the pick is a curious one, especially since she didn't know tax payers weren't behind Fannie and Freddie..that's scary to think she'd be a heart beat away.. how much does she not know about our gov't...oh well it doesn't matter you guys are hell bent in putting her that close..it doesn't matter..I'm just scared for our country...2 people who don't know the economics of our country on one ticket and that's what you guys want..amazing..we reward the last 8 years with 4 more, and don't tell me McCain won't be bush..reread his website and tell me the difference in policies..not the rhetoric, the on paper facts says it all.:shakeno:

McCain won't be another 4-years of Bush. Now what? Is this when you cite the fact that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush? I'd say 10% voting against Bush is exactly where a Maverick REP like McCain should be. Turn to CNN and I can't wait to hear your next CNN inspired talking point.

You'd have to have a very bad memory to not remember all the times McCain has taken Bush to task in public the last 8-years. To the displeasure of most CON's I might add. Remember his not so quiet dance with Kerry where ppl were saying he may in fact be Kerry's VP pick? Some how if he was I doubt you would say all these things about him 4-years ago. Nah you're an IND I'm sure you would have. :)

I cannot believe anyone is trying to make McCain out to be a stand in line CON. This is the guy that was the rock star of the left media because he constantly went after CON's. You either have a very bad memory or you simply, well, apparently I can't say that either, because it's considered a personal attack.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 02:03 PM
How about back up what you posted as fact above, we will start out with that.

I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?

MoFinz
09-09-2008, 02:08 PM
I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?

Wow. That's pretty courageous, putting up some stats you found on the internet, then disavow them when theyre challeneged and then turn around and challenge others for holding you to what you post.

Shocking i tell you....shocking:rolleyes2:

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 02:09 PM
I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?


Hey, you know, you win. Myself, I would be ashamed to start a thread that appears to be the exact opposite of the actual truth, it does not bother you obviously.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 02:13 PM
McCain won't be another 4-years of Bush. Now what? Is this when you cite the fact that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush? I'd say 10% voting against Bush is exactly where a Maverick REP like McCain should be. Turn to CNN and I can't wait to hear your next CNN inspired talking point.

You'd have to have a very bad memory to not remember all the times McCain has taken Bush to task in public the last 8-years. To the displeasure of most CON's I might add. Remember his not so quiet dance with Kerry where ppl were saying he may in fact be Kerry's VP pick? Some how if he was I doubt you would say all these things about him 4-years ago. Nah you're an IND I'm sure you would have. :)

I cannot believe anyone is trying to make McCain out to be a stand in line CON. This is the guy that was the rock star of the left media because he constantly went after CON's. You either have a very bad memory or you simply, well, apparently I can't say that either, because it's considered a personal attack.

Have you not noticed the shift in McMcain's stance on issues since his campaign has been taken over by the Rove minions?

Your missing the boat if not, yes the old McCain was a stand up politician and I respected him. But things have changed, if this is a brilliant deceptive strategy to win the election and he plans to change back to the old McCain I will cheer him on when i see it, but right now I can't support his alignment with the old guard.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 02:19 PM
Wow. That's pretty courageous, putting up some stats you found on the internet, then disavow them when theyre challeneged and then turn around and challenge others for holding you to what you post.

Shocking i tell you....shocking:rolleyes2:


I posted a recent story to a new article, tell me what is so shocking about seeing that in an internet forum. Maybe you should back away from the internet i don't think you can handle it.

ohall
09-09-2008, 02:19 PM
Have you not noticed the shift in McMcain's stance on issues since his campaign has been taken over by the Rove minions?

Your missing the boat if not, yes the old McCain was a stand up politician and I respected him. But things have changed, if this is a brilliant deceptive strategy to win the election and he plans to change back to the old McCain I will cheer him on when i see it, but right now I can't support his alignment with the old guard.

Of course I've noticed a shift in McCain. He's be stupid not to do so. Just as I've noticed a shift in Obama. He voted for FISA!

I know McCain will be as he always has been if he wins. I know Obama will be as he always has been if he wins. I'm shocked anyone would really think differently. Both of these men are very good politicians after all.

One man has a long record to prove he has been a Maverick. The other man only has a record to show he can read a teleprompter.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 02:23 PM
Hey, you know, you win. Myself, I would be ashamed to start a thread that appears to be the exact opposite of the actual truth, it does not bother you obviously.

We both posted links to information. I like how you trump your information over mine with such authoritative malice. I guess it's how you found out everything bad about someone in a week or two.

MoFinz
09-09-2008, 02:36 PM
I posted a recent story to a new article, tell me what is so shocking about seeing that in an internet forum. Maybe you should back away from the internet i don't think you can handle it.


Of course...but then, i've never posted something i didn't believe to be true or factual.

Ah, to be as blissfull as thee.....:woot:

Ferretsquig
09-09-2008, 02:43 PM
I don't have the time to check this out, but I wanted to google highest taxed state which I did, and came away with this site, you put in Alaska, and it comes out to be the LEAST TAXED STATE???????

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/440.html

Did I miss something??? Unless I did, that is a real fine article you have there 772

Try reading the post again. Now whose taxes does the article state the Alaskan's are spending?

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 02:58 PM
Try reading the post again. Now whose taxes does the article state the Alaskan's are spending?


The article states that Alaska is the number 1 taxed state per resident, and number 1 spent per resident. I posted on article that states Alaska is number 50 per resident.......

I guess you are talking about spending per resident, I did not check that out, could not be more wrong on the first though.

ohall
09-09-2008, 03:07 PM
The data is a year old.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/pf/0704/gallery.tax_friendliest/index.html

Ferretsquig
09-09-2008, 03:20 PM
The article states that Alaska is the number 1 taxed state per resident, and number 1 spent per resident. I posted on article that states Alaska is number 50 per resident.......

Again, who is being taxed? I'll give you a hint....its not Alaskans. I realize the title this poster gave to the thread is a bit misleading, but you should still read the article.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 03:47 PM
That article....is that what passes for journalism these days?

Totally a opinion piece, a hit job.

Way to go Time Magazine!

Pathetic.

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 04:07 PM
As a Governor, I would expect her to look out for her state, just like I hope my Governor looks out for ours.

As Vice President, I would expect her to look out for The United States, and I am sure she will do so.

ohall
09-09-2008, 04:28 PM
That article....is that what passes for journalism these days?

Totally a opinion piece, a hit job.

Way to go Time Magazine!

Pathetic.

It's TIME, I think most ppl understand where they are coming from.

As far as I'm concerned US has more credibility than they do. And they also did a Palin hit piece last week.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 05:22 PM
Of course...but then, i've never posted something i didn't believe to be true or factual.

Ah, to be as blissfull as thee.....:woot:


I believe it is true and factual. Are you saying it isn't true and what is your basis?

MoFinz
09-09-2008, 05:27 PM
I believe it is true and factual. Are you saying it isn't true and what is your basis?

First you say:
I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?


Then you say:
I believe it is true and factual. Are you saying it isn't true and what is your basis?

My point:
I say what i mean and mean what i say. Any questions? See the difference?:rolleyes:

Don't take it personal when someone questions you. Answer them. Otherwise your post and your point are :foundout:

Mr772
09-09-2008, 06:01 PM
First you say:
I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?


Then you say:
I believe it is true and factual. Are you saying it isn't true and what is your basis?

My point:
I say what i mean and mean what i say. Any questions? See the difference?:rolleyes:

Don't take it personal when someone questions you. Answer them. Otherwise your post and your point are :foundout:

There was no question posed to answer. I believe the article unless you have some reason for me not too. I admit fault in a poorly chosen title but I can't be responsible if a response is based on a miss understanding or lack of reading the story.

milldog
09-09-2008, 06:05 PM
I never said anything above was a fact. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I also never claimed to be a Time magazine fact checker.

I only linked the article that was written by a reputable news organization. Are you going to join the blame the media campaign?

Then you shouldn't be posting!

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 06:57 PM
The article states that Alaska is the highest taxed state, when in fact it is the lowest, how can that be missed?

It also states that they spend the most per capita, which is true, but something tells me there is more to it than that. I doubt that all happened in her first two years, I believe she ran Alaska great, and I hope she will soon take it a step further. The article is garbage....I did read it.

BlueFin
09-09-2008, 07:34 PM
P4311, you and I agree on Ron Paul, interesting how both of us can go from him to the choices we made afterwards....but for change, Obama is farthest away from Bush of the 2 canidates left...I don't know what Obama has done personally to you, but he's the best example of change of the 2 choices left..

For the base to be energize with the same canidate at the top of the ticket makes no sense logically.. and I still think the pick is a curious one, especially since she didn't know tax payers weren't behind Fannie and Freddie..that's scary to think she'd be a heart beat away.. how much does she not know about our gov't...oh well it doesn't matter you guys are hell bent in putting her that close..it doesn't matter..I'm just scared for our country...2 people who don't know the economics of our country on one ticket and that's what you guys want..amazing..we reward the last 8 years with 4 more, and don't tell me McCain won't be bush..reread his website and tell me the difference in policies..not the rhetoric, the on paper facts says it all.:shakeno:


You can include me on the Ron Paul bandwagon, unfortunately, he has no chance.

I am a registered Libertarian, and a constitutionalist, I decided after the elections of the 90's that I would register Libertarian and remain so, that is how I voice my preference, however, I have to vote for the major party candidate that comes closest to my beliefs.

Obama is clearly far left, and McCain, despite the necessity to pander to the far right before elections, has proven himself to be more moderate in his actions in the senate, has proven his willingness to cross the aisle to get things done.

I wish more people would register Libertarian or Independent, it would then force some change in the status quo. That is my belief.

BlueFin
09-09-2008, 07:43 PM
Have you not noticed the shift in McMcain's stance on issues since his campaign has been taken over by the Rove minions?

Your missing the boat if not, yes the old McCain was a stand up politician and I respected him. But things have changed, if this is a brilliant deceptive strategy to win the election and he plans to change back to the old McCain I will cheer him on when i see it, but right now I can't support his alignment with the old guard.

Have you not seen enough elections to know that centrist candidates often have to appeal to the extreme of their parties to rally support for the election?

It would seem the wise course of action would be judge a candidate on his record and history, not on election time pandering.

BlueFin
09-09-2008, 07:47 PM
I would recheck any data expoused by Michael Kinsley in a CNN/TIME article carefully before stating it as fact, he is more than a bit extremely biased.

Tetragrammaton
09-09-2008, 08:18 PM
Obama is clearly far left

Based on what? And if Obama is far left, what is Dennis Kucinich?

Mr772
09-09-2008, 08:22 PM
All of a sudden everyone only posts facts...this isn't an opinion piece we are talking about here. I understand keeping with the party line and blaming the media for anything that you don't want to hear.

It's not like it's a Ariana Huffington article. I understand some of you want to blindly defend but lets be real here all the articles that don't pat palin on the back are not bunk.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 08:25 PM
You can include me on the Ron Paul bandwagon, unfortunately, he has no chance.

I wish more people would register Libertarian or Independent, it would then force some change in the status quo. That is my belief.

I resound your bid for Libertarian and Independent's this country lacks a real choice when it really matters.

MoFinz
09-09-2008, 08:44 PM
All of a sudden everyone only posts facts...this isn't an opinion piece we are talking about here. I understand keeping with the party line and blaming the media for anything that you don't want to hear.

It's not like it's a Ariana Huffington article. I understand some of you want to blindly defend but lets be real here all the articles that don't pat palin on the back are not bunk.

If you're not going to post facts, it's hard to have a meaningful debate. Opinion is one thing, but you yourself have stated that you believed the article to be factually correct.

And i seriously doubt you can pin down which political party i am toeing the line for. As a matter of fact, i know you can't.

So, instead of worrying about someone questioning your opinions validity, and if your opinion were based on valid points, the issue wouldn't be your flip flops, but rather your valid points.

phinfan3411
09-09-2008, 08:56 PM
You can include me on the Ron Paul bandwagon, unfortunately, he has no chance.

I am a registered Libertarian, and a constitutionalist, I decided after the elections of the 90's that I would register Libertarian and remain so, that is how I voice my preference, however, I have to vote for the major party candidate that comes closest to my beliefs.

Obama is clearly far left, and McCain, despite the necessity to pander to the far right before elections, has proven himself to be more moderate in his actions in the senate, has proven his willingness to cross the aisle to get things done.

I wish more people would register Libertarian or Independent, it would then force some change in the status quo. That is my belief.


I agree 100% with what you have said, and think some changes to the rules need to be made. I think these rules hurt severly the chances of candidates like Ron Paul.

For instance, I like to think I am a independent, but I am registered a republican because independents can't vote in the primary. I also think the primaries should be held on ONE day, not over months, so you really know what people think about candidates, not, oh my guy is not doing good, so I will switch to this guy.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 09:15 PM
I changed my party affiliation in January 2001, to Independent. Disgusted with the two party system.

I would back a third party if it shared most of my views on the issues, in a heartbeat.

MDFINFAN
09-09-2008, 09:25 PM
I agree 100% with what you have said, and think some changes to the rules need to be made. I think these rules hurt severly the chances of candidates like Ron Paul.

For instance, I like to think I am a independent, but I am registered a republican because independents can't vote in the primary. I also think the primaries should be held on ONE day, not over months, so you really know what people think about candidates, not, oh my guy is not doing good, so I will switch to this guy.

That almost made me change my affiliation this election cycle, it felt cruel sitting on the sidelines not being able to vote in the primaries....but I just don't believe in the 2 parties enough to register as one of them..but I know for the general election I have to choose between the 2. I think since I'm a independent I should be able to vote in both the repub and dem primaries since they won't allow a viable 3rd party... I should be able to pick the 2 canidates I have to vote for in the general election. Unfortunately Ron Paul ran as a repub, I knew he didn't have a chance there.. but I like the guy..