9 Apr
Sarah Palin At SRLC
This entry was posted in Sarah Palin. Bookmark the permalink.
Friday, April 9th, 2010 at 6:38 pm | 737 views
- Share:
Okay, I tried to post a gif for ya’ Mata. A standing ovation gif, but when I hit submit, my comments disappeared, so just imagine the pic. LOL
@Theodore Herrera #2
That would be acting stupidly. You are in effect advising that the Republican party become a GOP version of the Current Democratic leadership. A moderate Republican is still a Republican. If you totally block out moderates from appearing in the primaries, then you will absolutely lose most of your chance of getting moderate votes. You apparently don’t understand the concept and purpose of a balanced ticket. The logical preference should be for a strongly Conservative Presidential Candidate, and a Vice Presidential Candidate that appeals to the party moderates. If you leave moderates totally out of the equation, you will not gain the votes from the middle that you need to win.
Mata, I am not going to critique your whole post. Most of it was bloviating and a defense of increased spending, increased debt, and increased taxes. Here it goes
“But no.. you say hang, let the Alaskan roads sink and crack. Let freight and goods transportation suffer with lengthy delays. Let the private operators absorb the repair costs and shortened lifespan for the damage to their fleet vehicles. Just as long as it fits your numbers, right Lindberg? Looks so darn good on paper.”
That is a pretty extreme argument, the roads were not sinking and collapsing before the increased spending. You are just giving a hypothetical apocalyptic vision with no basis in facts.
“To you the record revenue doesn’t count, the genuine needs be damned. Palin was charged with doing something no one has done… having a budget that was less that it was the prior year so she can prove her conservative credentials to you, personally.”
Revenue is irrelevant in a discussion where she increased spending 31% and increased the debt. These are cold hard facts. Now, if she had used the revenue to pay down the debts in the relatively good economic times they wouldn’t be facing 70% debt to GDP ratios right now. But they didn’t. They just blew it all.
“And then you come up with the absurdity that commercial lending suffered because investors and financial institutions did Alaskan bonds instead.”
Apparently, you don’t understand how depositors attain interest. Commercial Banks return interest to depositors by putting money into corporate bonds, small business loans, and government loans. You may not have much money or have enough to have a large portfolio, so you probably don’t take the time to study the intricacies of the market. This is ok, but that you have to understand is that increased Government bonds divert capital away from the private sector.
“But let me give you a couple of clues. First, I hardly think that bonds for roads and infrastructure provided an “either/or” lending environment in Alaska. And secondly, there hasn’t been any substantive, or job creating, commercial lending around since 2008. That makes it even more unlikely the bonds became the sacrificial lamb of money for Alaskan jobs. In fact, Alaska has better unemployment numbers than my state…. and we don’t have any road work going on except what Obama’s making the taxpayers pay for. At least Alaska’s not doing the hand out trip.”
There hasn’t been any economic growth in Alaska or around the nation for a couple of reasons. One, the high tax burden(ie. Conoco slashing jobs: http://www.adn.com/2010/02/02/1121858/conocos-alaska-profits-drop-in.html), two, increased government spending(capital is being directed away from the private sector to buy government debt). Consumers are also getting royally screwed(though be it slowly), by the low interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve in their attempt to facilitate large amounts of government borrowing. Prices on food and energy are slowly going up week by week
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6dT1TIKE1iwkoR1HuZA_E1pd5tQD9F2RTH83
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9F3OGTG0
“Here’s another revelation for you. Commercial lending isn’t going to be around for a while to come, and bonds are only going to get even more popular. Investors are going to be escaping the high risk, big turnover bucks to nestle into some safe investments post Fed/MBS buys and the inevitable increasing rates.”
You are telling me something I already know, but that is the problem, capital is being diverted to finance government largesse.
yada yada yada, Lindbergh. Nothing’s changed. You still charge Palin with standards you don’t apply to your beloved Houston king of pork, Ron Paul. You still avoid the pertinent question…. just who is your perfect conservative candidate that no one measures up to.
Can’t answer that, can you?
Just more yada yada yada. In case you TX folk don’t figure that out, it’s sorta yiddish for “bloviating”.
Mata, you aren’t even discussing the issues anymore, you are just defending spending increases, tax increases, and increased debt. You have been reduced to, “yada yada yada, Lindbergh.” Just posts ago, you said ” I’m not even a Palin for POTUS person”, yet now you mention her as a candidate and claim I am setting unreasonable standards. You totally lose it when people do not support her. Sorry, I am not jumping on the bandwagon, I don’t like people who raise taxes, raise the debt, and wear Israeli flag pins. Not my cup of tea.
“pork”
It doesn’t increase the deficit, it merely reallocates spending from the Executive branch to the legislative branch. It is used as a tool by big government republicans who vote for unbalanced budgets to claim they are fiscally conservative when they oppose appropriating all the money through the Congress.
Seems like you lose it when Ron Paul enters the conversation. Looks like you got a case of PDS. lol.
What is it with you, Lindbergh. If you, personally, don’t know it, it can’t possibly exist or be true? And people wonder why Alaskans feel they have little in common with the lower 48 mentality…
The above is from OutWestNewspaper. Or maybe a dose of reality of what Alaskan and Canadian weather can do to roads from Roads To Alaska is due. Again about one of the more well known and traveled roads, the Alcan.
Then, of course, there’s the seasonal load limitations on many roads to minimize the damage, as the Alaskan study on the Elliott Highway, north of Fairbanks.
There’s a reason my friend tells me that Alaska has two seasons… winter, and road repair (Continuously running from May to Oct annually).
You think building and/or maintaining roads in that environment is the same as the lower 48? Have you got any idea what those road conditions do to vehicles annually? Just in the north, the State maintains 1500 miles of paved roads and 2000 miles of gravel roads. Even back in 1998, they had hefty annual budgets, especially for the northern roads where the discontinuous permafrost would do the most damage, and resurfacing was done annually. It’s a constant battle against the elements, not only for roads, but for homes.
But of course, I’m exaggerating as to what happens when they just let the road repairs go so they can please you with budget numbers, Lindbergh. I guess they should have done it Ron Paul’s way… let the feds/via the taxpayers pay for it instead of spending their own cash.
You got a reading problem, Lindbergh? I didn’t mention Palin as a candidate. I asked you… several times now… just who was this perfect candidate you compare everyone to. You know, the one who increases revenue, and reduces a budget from the prior year. I see you continually dodge that question.
Most especially since your king of pork hero has no consistent principles. I’ve actually been waiting to see when you were going to, again, present him as the conservative god we should all be worshipping. You brought it up way early in the thread. Yeah.. .Mr. Conservative. The guy who puts in for his local pork for Houston to up the appropriations spending… which the nation pays for in taxes for the budget… then votes against the bill so he can bring home the bacon plus pretend he has “principles”. He calls that “transparency”. Right….
I always laugh when I hear him pull that routine. He feels like since it’s already been stolen, he’ll be stealing it back for his constituents. Trouble is, he’s robbing the nation for his little back yard.
But then I see you have your Paulbot talking points down…. naw, pork’s not spending. Dang… you quote him just about verbatim.
So it’s no problem you don’t answer the question. We all know there is no answer you can give. Or, how is it you put dodging questions” Oh yes, “not jumping on the band wagon”. heh
Obviously you’re new here. I’m quite sure that those who know me quite well can straighten out your smug self-perception that you bother me enough to make me “lose it”. LOL Ah but the lofty dreamers you Paulbots are. A mosquito bite gives me more chagrin. But is just so danged much fun to watch you sink in your own verbal bogs.
@Lindy…ROFLMAO, you really have no idea how absurdly inane you really are, do you? I mean you jump on a subject and beat it nearly to death.
Yeaah, well Mata already destroyed that little argument of yours in comment number 95.
And you mention Ron Paul?
Then Mata mentions that you defend his pork thusly:
As usual, Mata is right on target with that one, too…
From 2007:
Source
Source
From 2009 here are Ron Paul’s earmarks, pretty long list for a fiscal conservative…
Source
Now some of these programs might really be needed and qualify as good spending, but like Obama making “transparency the touchstone” of his Presidency, then making all kinds of back room, behind locked door deals, Ron Paul is in the same boat with earmarks. He decries spending that is not Constitutional, yet he dips into the cookie jar over and over.
But what do you say that earmarks are Lind-A-Roonie??
Nope, earmarks are what politicians use to buy votes in their districts. Plain and simple.
Lindy, are you even capable of making a point without insulting or attacking someone?
I didn’t think so.
@Lindberg
Mata is absolutely correct about the effects of extreme winters on roads. These extremes can destroy a road surface in very short periods of time, requiring quick temporary repairs or complete resurfacing. Of course, you couldn’t know about that coming from Texas. Unless you want to go dig-up the Alaska Department of Transportation’s communications with the Governor’s office regarding ACTUAL repair and resurfacing projects during the years in question, (rather than relying only on “projected” numbers put forth previously in yearly budgets, and comparing them with actual spending), you can’t really say whether Palin HAD to approve additional spending on Alaskan roads, or didn’t. State budgets generally can only estimate such repair needs for a fiscal year, they can not foresee the future of what will actually happen. Nor can an administration simply say that they won’t approve spending additional funds for such repairs in highly rural states like Alaska. A governor’s office would not say, “Sorry, we can’t fix your broken and gaping open road fissures because we didn’t set aside enough money in the budget.” Nor could or would such rural area’s be reasonably expected to do without roads because of winter damage.
ditto, ditto…
And anti, you certainly sourced the Ron Paul “fiscal conservative” fallacy well. Since I was a former libertarian, I pretty much stay up on those that bear some resemblance to them in Congress. Paul fell off that bandwagon back when the Dems assumed power in 2007. Guess he figured if he couldn’t beat ‘em, he’d join ‘em. But he’s certainly figured out a way to spin his fall from fiscal grace to the Paul’faithful.
Frankly, I like having Ron Paul in the Congress… or did pre’2007 anyway. Would I want him for POTUS? Hang no. While I do like some of his fiscal policies, I can’t abide his trade or foreign policies. Too big a chasm to leap for me there. But I’m sure he’ll be in Congress for a long time to come since he’s now literally bringing home the bacon on the taxpayer’s dime.
What’s most disingenuous about the argument Lindbergh insists upon making is this “for Sarah only” standard. He ignores the rainy day fund created, and increased revenue. Then says they should have used that revenue to pay down the debt. ta hell with needed improvements.
He harps on budget increase of 31%, but ignores it was supposed to be a 61% increase. Then refuses to acknowledge that what the bulk of that increase was spent on was genuinely needed for that state. Perhaps most offensive is he can sit there and live off of Paul’s pork for improvements, and then slam Alaskans for spending their own revenue, paying their own way.
It’s not a perfect world. Personally I wish he could come up with the super pol, and tell us just who is the person that can increase the revenues and shrink the budget from the year before. But he’s stymied there…. dodges that question with a 10 foot pole.
Oh wait… for Mr. Lindbergh, it has to be “…white men of privilege and high education to bring this country back to it’s greatness. White trash just won’t cut it.” That line reveals such a despicable, and dislikable mentality you have to be embarrassed the guy shares any commonality in politics with conservatives. He is the epitome of what the libs/progs hold up as an example of the tea party movement. And in some ways, this mentality is our own worst enemy when their words bubble to the forefront.
But of course, no one is allowed to mention his distasteful view of humans because that’s avoiding the argument. Guess he doesn’t want to get his white robes and hood dirty in debate.
But perhaps most laughable is the condescending way he speaks of economics to the forum. The leaps of assumption INRE bonds and lending distort and morph truth…. i.e. he portrays that the dollar that went towards the government bonds can’t be spent on private lending. Of course that’s true. A dollar is spent one way or another. But that doesn’t support his argument that the increased bonds were the reason for the job losses, or that it stopped lending that was not being done for high risk and shaky financial institution portfolios.
To suggest that if the bonds had not been bought, they would have automatically been rechanneled into commercial lending in Alaska… or anywhere… is absolutely Paulbot delusional. If the investors wanted a safe haven for that allocated cash, and didn’t buy one government bond, they may find that safe haven elsewhere. Thus the reason they diversify. Some in risk… great right now with the US Treasury putting any risk on the tax payers with zero interest… and some in safer, long term yields. Again, Alaska and Texas are inviting state bonds because of the revenue potential of those states, compared to those that depend upon retail, service, industry or high tech.
Yet still he links the Conoco article while ignoring that Conoco gained it’s highest profit from it’s Alaska operations. The job losses are not tied to Alaskan bonds. Nor to the profit sharing agreement. (no profits, no sharing). And BTW, I’ve never said I supported that agreement. I merely support Alaskans to make their own decisions about their resources, and collecting profit sharing on state resources is a far cry from “welfare”, as Lindbergh puts it. Instead, Conoco’s business drop comes down to supply and demand. Quite simply, it’s reduced demand as the reason for the job losses.
But no… comes back over and over with the same shuck and jive dodge, trying to make the same anal point. “but but but spending went *up*”. duh
One more time, Lindbergh… why don’t you consult your “white men of privilege” and show us where any one of your heroes:
1: increased private sector revenue for their state (not via pork theft)
2: slashed a budget of over 61% increase to 31% increase… no, wait. To meet Lindbergh’s criteria, slashed that budget to less than what it was the previous year
3: wisely allocated the cash to needed spending instead of pet projects for future donations
… and oh, we’re more flexible than you, Lindbergh. We’ll be happy to accept a black/any race or ethnic man *or woman* – privileged or not – who does that as our conservative icon.
BURN!!! Ouch, it is almost too painful to read, Mata. You ALMOST have me feeling sorry for little old Lindy.
Mata should really start charging tuition for the schooling she hands out.
Seriously, Lindberg? When Mata cinches in her triangle choke on you, it really is past time for you to tap out.
Notice Ivan’s graceful early slink out of here after his initial rah rah cheering you on? He didn’t do you any favors, guy.
He basically pushed you into the maws of Ms. Tenacity. Then tip-toed himself > the door, stage left.
Lindy! Dood!
I tried to warn you off:
Yet you kept on. And on. And on.
The horn was blowin’ really loud. Yet you just stood there on the tracks:
Technically, Word, Ivan didn’t “gracefully early slink out of here”. In my comment #80,I pointed out that his contribution to the debate was nothing more than personal assaults, and suggested that since it always seems to be me bailing him out of the moderation of spam filters, he no longer enjoys that courtesy from me. So after hours or a day or so in the moderation/spam filters, his ensuing personal assaults/sans any cogent contribution just ended up in the cyber garbage bin. LOL
It seems I was the only FA author that took enough pity on him to let his personal rants come thru. oops…. bit the hand that fed him. Too bad.
Has he been banned or what?
Seems I’ve got more comment thread reading to catch up on.
I’m shocked! Shocked that Mike’s America hasn’t been the one bailing his comments out of the filter.
Well, I have to confess to bailing Ivan’s #81 out of the filter simply for the purpose of turning his Grampy’s advice around on him….and, of course, for the purpose of adding some chum to the water for the inevitable shark attack.
Heh!
I will first address roads. It seems like your whole first post is predicated on the notion that I said roads don’t get damaged, I never said such a thing. Ok, well first off, I never said roads don’t crack or get damaged, what I said is you don’t need more tax money to fix the problem. You can merely reallocated funds if necessary. Icy roads didn’t just become a problem in Alaska, the problem isn’t that there isn’t “enough money”, rather they are using what money that have unwisely and not allocating it properly to specific needs. But that is the problem with the State in general, the market best allocates resources through consumer demand(but that is another topic) They can cut funding elsewhere and use the funds for road maintenance, or cut pay for public workers.
No, I never mentioned any perfect candidate, but in you bringing up the “perfect candidate”, you are postulating Palin as a candidate that is up for criticism. So whether you admit it or not, she is your candidate, because if she wasn’t your candidate, you wouldn’t be bringing up the word candidate.
Earmarks don’t increase the budget. It is funny how you criticize politicians who don’t increase the budget or ever vote for an unbalanced budget, but you spend posts defending deficit spending and higher taxes. It just shows you insincerity. The fantastic thing is, you bloviate about earmarks for sentences and throw out ad hominem attacks against Ron Paul, but you never contest my prior point the earmarks don’t increase the budget, they merely reallocate funds. You know this to be true, so you avoid ever addressing the point. Your PDS is amusing, you truly hate the guy. You think there is some Paulian conspiracy to destroy Palin.
And once again, you are mixing and matching words in regards to economics. I don’t believe it to be intentional, I just don’t think you understand. I never said government borrowing is the exclusive reason for job loss or lack of growth, I said it was a significant contributing factor. And it is, it isn’t delusional, it is a fact. Government Spending crowds out private investment that would be used in small business lending and corporate bonds. The reason that downsizing occurred throughout corporate America in the wake of the Credit crunch was not merely because of a decrease in consumption, but also because of an evaporation of investment capital held by investment and commercial banks which was predicated on subprime loans in all asset classes.
I understand the point of why investors buy government bonds, this doesn’t dispute the fact that government bonds crowd out private investors because investment capital is reallocated to facilitate government borrowing as opposed to job creation. Buying Government bonds isn’t a “safe haven”, it is putting money into low risk low yield bonds. If they want less risk, there are low yielding corporate bonds. US Treasuries for example, have a higher yield than bonds sold by Berkshire Hathway Inc. Berkshire Hathaway Bonds are 3.5 less basis points than US Treasuries. Money would go to low yielding corporate bonds
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU
I did not ignore Conoco Alaska made the most profit, what you are ignoring is that they had to cut hundreds of jobs because of increased taxes. I never said Conoco lost money because of increased Alaskan borrowing,, now that is deliberate lying and obfuscating of my position, and you know it.
And it is welfare, it is socialism. It is the redistribution of private wealth from Oil companies to citizens through the government. Public Ownership of resources and reallocation of private wealth by the government is socialist. Demand for oil us up, prices of crude oil are up from 2009 through 2010.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-oil-demand-up-for-the-first-time-in-2009-2009-9
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN1611743220100416
http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm
Your claims that oil prices declining, rather than higher taxes, are responsible for unemployment. This simply does not coincide with the facts. Conoco cut jobs in the second half of 2009, when crude oil prices had already gone up more than 12 dollars by the midpoint of the year and by the end of 2009 had increased more than 23 since the beginning of the year, they are up more than 38 dollars since the first price measure in 2009. As Conoco execs said, job cuts occurred because of high taxation. Please, stop blathering about commodities you know nothing about.
@Wordsmith:, someone… not I… assigned Ivan to the moderation spam filter. Whether for time outs or to monitor his general personal assault tactics, I dunno. Just know I seemed to be the only one that cut him loose. No more. As I said above, he can sit there and rot before I bother to bail him out.
ah yes… Lindbergh spin returns…
Shall we note what you said, verbatim?
A little johnny come lately to reverse yourself, eh?
Before you attempt reading between lines, you might try learning to read the lines. I didn’t “postulate” Palin as a candidate. I am questioning your criticism of her as a conservative, applying standards you don’t apply to anyone else. I think that begs an answer from you as to just whom you think meets your high threshhold you set for Palin as a governor.
“Earmarks don’t increase the budget”. Hook, line, sinker purchase of Paul’spin. uh huh
Tell it to the Paul’faithful.
Again you read between lines to make erroneous assumptions. I wouldn’t support a “balance the budget” mandate under any circumstance. That’s a blanket approval for taxes. Congress won’t stop spending, but they can then justify an increase taxes to “balance the budget”. I would, however support a cap on any annual budget based on % of GDP.
Virtually all spending is deficit spending… most especially in a declining economic condition…. since it’s not a cash payment, but funded and requires interest. Playing the “let’s assume the revenue vs spending” game is all well and good, but revenue estimates are just that… estimates. They fluctuate with economic conditions. The only way to insure no deficit spending is to take it out of the state bank account balance, and pay cash for the services immediately. Your self perception as an economic whiz is highly overrated.
You don’t like any spending. I happen to believe that states have a perfect right to decide how to best spend their revenue for their state needs. And transportation/roads etal is a prime example of “needs”… especially in Alaskan climate.
Again another
I repeat, your self perception as an economic whiz is highly overrated.
Let’s again remind you what @you said that elicited my counter:
Shall we recap? Now you say you never said “government borrowing” or issuing of bonds to pay for their spending wasn’t the *exclusive* reason ” for job loss or lack of grown.
Uh… where’s that “exclusive” in your above comment that investors/bankers chose bonds over commercial lending to business? Where did you expand to the other “non exclusive” reasons you allude to?
Or shall we all become adept in your skill of reading between the lines and filling in the blanks for convenience?
Sure appears to me that you distinctly said “…*instead* of…” putting money into commercial lending, they purchased bonds. Most smart investors do have diverse portfolios, and not all high risk. So your notion that if the bonds weren’t there, they’d go for commercial lending, is just propaganda for the uninformed.
Look, Lindbergh, I don’t disagree with you on the runaway spending at all levels of government… and most especially the feds. I am likely to give far more leeway to the states since I’m a big 10th Amendment fan. But unlike @you, who said: “I just flat out disagree with increased spending, anywhere, particularly in a recession”, I recognize that as Paulbot delusional in the face of reality. It’s not that I don’t disagree that the necessary spending should be offset by budget cuts. But when you have necessary spending for roads, should you hold those needs hostage until a governor convinces the liberal majority legislature to do the budget cuts? And who pays the price when you refuse to do the necessary spending unless the budget it cut? In this case, it’s those that use the unrepaired roads as part of commerce and necessary travel.
And considering that the budget cuts must be done thru the legislative branches, and not the state admin branches, just how much control does a governor have on slashing budgets? In most cases, any governor is happy to get their legislature to agree to almost any budget cut.
Like I said, your theory is not bad in it’s foundation. It’s just not grounded in political reality. And apparently it’s a political reality you demand only of Palin and Alaska. Serious chutzpah since you aren’t an Alaskan resident. What business is it of yours, anyway?
I’ll take a mea culpa on that part of my statement, which was followed by the reference to the profit sharing agreement which you called “taxes” generically. No, you did not say it was because of Alaskan borrowing. My error.
You are in error that it is largely because of increased taxes…. or that profit sharing agreement.
The profit sharing is a tax that kicks in when there is “profit”. No profit, no profit sharing taxes. And INRE your comment about government owning the resources…. meaning the citizens of the state…. I will point out to you that the oil company doesn’t own the land either. It’s a lease, not an outright purchase. Since I’ve been privvy to more than a few private mineral/crop leases in my time, if you lease my land and take a resource that belongs to me, it is not socialist for me to negotiate a share of your take of that resource upon sale. It’s done with oil/gas fields, crop farms, tree farms, grazing and mineral rights all over the country daily. That one of the parties happens to be the state government, negotiating on behalf of the residents, doesn’t make it socialism.
And while I’m not a huge fan of the increased burden on the leasee (since it does prohibit expansion) in this case, I find it quite acceptable that the Alaskans chose to do this on their own behalf, and that the state doesn’t keep the profits, but cuts a check to the Alaskans to spend as they see fit.
But while we’re discussing “…deliberate lying and obfuscating of my position…” you said:
I didn’t discuss oil prices at all, Lindbergh. What I said was supply and demand, and that demand had gone down because of the recession, and both consumers and business tightening their belts. When demand goes down, revenue declines (and prices generally shoot up). When both demand and revenue decline, jobs are lost. You still pay taxes, but on less revenue, and a smaller payroll.
Let’s nail you for another of your lies, or your reading disability. Conoco’s execs did not attribute the job loss to taxes. What they said was:
Their spending on the fields is declining because demand was down. The party you are attributing to Conoco execs actually comes from The Alliance… short for the Alaska Support Industry Alliance. They’ve been anti-ACE since the inception, and of course they will use job layoffs… no matter what the reason… to score political points again.
hummm…. wouldn’t that best be delivered while standing in front of a mirror?
Hey Mata…Leave Ivan there. My Night Crew in Ops here find his comments to be both profoundly convoluted and lacking a clear point. You can lead a horse to water…etc… Lindbergh falls into the same category as well.
You probably should charge tuition here unless you are having too much fun crossing swords with those that are essentially unarmed.
My Night Ops Crew here is gathered up around the FA virtual campfire (flat screen monitor) a few km outside of Kandahar when time between taskings allow.
Your Tax Dollars at work.
@Old Trooper:
Stay safe Trooper.
A tip o’ my hat and a humble, heart felt “Thank You” to you and all of your Night Ops Crew.
Please know that there is a family in Georgia, USA who gives thanks, and prays for, all of the fine men and women serving our country in lands both foreign and domestic.
Wishing you safe journeys and a speedy return.
Aye
I don’t think this Lindy thing has any idea of just how bad Alaskan roads can get. Hubby was stationed in Adak for a year, bought a car to get around in, drove it for a year and it was junk. He kept two spare tires in the trunk and had two more tied to the roof of the car. He spent more on replacing and repairing tires than the car was worth.
Remembering the photos of his Alaska car I got curious, don’t know if Mata has posted this info, I looked it up to see how much is spent on road repair and if there is a dollar cost assigned for damage caused to vehicles by Alaskan roads, $156 million or $323 per motorist, per year. Must be tire repair and front end alignment.
More stats:
50% of all Alaskan roads are in poor or mediocre condition and other than the interstate, 93% of these poor/mediocre roads are two lane highways. 58% of the 8 billion dollars worth of commodities are trucked, ouch, bet the truckers suffer some pretty wild drives. You couldn’t pay me enough!
Road repair cost…. since 1956 Alaska has recieved $7.9 billion from the fed Highway Trust Fund, by sometime in 2009 it would have a negative $200 million in that fund according to OMB. The Fund is paygo and by law can’t exceed it’s income that is funded by gas taxes. Wonder how much state, county and local shelled out?
Not enough research on my part, sorry, not much time lately, just curious because of that car!
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ZyUw0BlGM3MJ:www.agc.org/galleries/conmark/Alaskafactsheet0207.pdf+alaskan+road+repairs&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCLizCwxtkXmumzU_Htb0UhVg8e2u_kPm19N0JiusEHtyaBTD55icRlwULTDhz36VjOIHVv-PBn9VL-6dI8U9Fypi8z5gNKkGbpwWLY-1P_HDWmIMNYaf5U_cSRGdrcBWiR7cG&sig=AHIEtbSgNzi3dEZaK9NqYJbhBQ6tN49GrA
@Old Trooper:
Money well spent, you all are worth so much more! Bless you all as well as the family members and friends waiting for you all to come home!
PATTER on 39;he might have want to say;wild man of priviledge?,bye
@Missy, you got it girl. And I must say the depreciation and damage per vehicle, and/or fleet, must be far more than the spent per motorist dollar amount allocated!
Don’t think any Alaskan will be purchasing a classic Austin Healy 3000 anytime soon…. You’ll have to add exhaust pipes to the standard toolkit! LOL
@Old Trooper, it’s always a delight to hear that you and the troops hunch around a computer screen and enjoy the FA crowd. Like Aye and Missy say, you are all money well spent, and there is no amount of honor and thanks we can extend to you all. We can’t wait until the “boots on the ground” are on the homeland soils.
And I assure you, I won’t be digging Ivan out anytime soon. I’m done with that bit. But I attach the bayonet for the homefront battle of words when I deem it necessary. Usually not for the commenter, who is unlikely to be swayed by any amount of facts, reason or logic. But for those who may read the archives and go “hummmmmmm”.
ilovebeeswarzone,
.
“The word that is closest to the heart is first on the lips.” I think he meant men, and it was the sexism, not the racism, that irked me first. Wild ones of either sex may be what we need
PATTER;you are getting of the thread;i said wild men and you said sexist,does it go together or apart?
bye
ilovebeeswarzone,
let’s start over. The quote in the post was “white men of privilege” and there are actually three “ists” here, “white” = racist, “men” = sexist, and “privelege” = classist. It’s a derogatory all around, and the sort of saying that can be too easily used to annoy people into reacting emotionally as I did to the “men” part, not that the rest is excusable. Your simple substitution of “wild” for “white” is a big help. And in general it is a good idea to spot tired ideas like this and have a quick comeback to deflect them.
Now back on topic, Sarah is a pretty wild woman, or a lot of people see her that way, definitely the opposite of White men of privilege. You’d think the Leftists who are so down with the people and all that would be rooting for a disadvantaged group (women) of non-privilege (worked).
PATTER;just to say how we can start a war with one word;i am sure OT and the braves ;will have a few laughs: that’s what i was aiming for thank’s bye OT it’s all your’s to answer;bye
@Old Trooper….A heartfelt thank you to you and your crew for your invaluable service to our country. My father was in WWII, saw heavy action in the Pacific and was in the first invasion of Okinawa, so the military has a place in my heart forever.
@Mata…You have a gift. Plain and simple, you have a gift. You schooled that boy.