Palin to Christie: It’s not courageous to cut spending when you’re broke

posted at 9:28 pm on March 4, 2011 by Allahpundit

He’s taken a couple of shots at her in the past, all of which went ignored, but I guess the latest iteration of “she needs to be less scripted” finally demanded a response. Ace’s co-blogger, DrewM, makes a nice point: Her critique of Christie on spending at the beginning here is actually a non sequitur vis-a-vis the question she’s being asked. David Asman mentions Christie but all he wants to know is if, unlike him, she finds anyone in the field inspiring. To which she responds by … comparing their records on spending, forcing Asman to repeat the question when she’s done. Says Drew, “She came prepared to smack him.” Indeed.

It’s a tragedy that the two of them won’t both be running next year. That primary war would be so epic, you’d need a Greek poet to blog it. As it is, politicos watch and wait breathlessly for his reply. Exit question: How is it that a Republican governor in a deeply Democratic state like Jersey is showing little courage by tackling unions and pension reform? The government may be broke, but Christie theoretically could go the Democratic route and push tax hikes or float bonds rather than demand cuts. And why do we assume that he’d have done differently than Palin did if he had the chance to govern a state — a red state, where he has an electoral advantage — with a surplus? He didn’t make the mess but he’s trying to clean it up, even though Jersey’s liberal voters might very well end up punishing him for it. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13

Thomas Paine proposed something similar for Europe, but not the US. It’s redistribution, so what do you think I’m going to say?

toliver on March 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

I don’t know, what are you going to say? And it wasn’t only Paine. It was Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Big socialists.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I’m asking for budget data to prove she didn’t cut spending. Do. You. Have. Any.?

Why are you pestering me this question? It was not a premise I put forward, nor a topic I discussed except in the most peripheral way when I pointed out (in Palin’s defense!) that it’s not fair to compare the Alaskan budget to the NJ budget because the way they raise revenue is altogether different. YOU brought it up when you were pestering me with niggling questions after you showed up late to the thread. Here:

Did she really cut spending while the state had a surplus?
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM

If you know the answer to this question which concerns you oh so very much, provide it yourself because, frankly my dear I don’t give a damn. I linked to the USA today story in a vain attempt to get you to stop nipping at my ankles. fwiw, the germane point was this:

Alaska’s spending bills are split into a capital budget for infrastructure projects and an operating budget that funds salaries and other general government expenses. In Palin’s first two years, the state operating budget has increased 31%, and capital spending remained roughly at the same level as the last two years under her predecessor, Republican Frank Murkowski, state records show.

I didn’t bring up O’Donnell.
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 6:57 PM

HA! I didn’t bring up Palin’s spending. You claimed I was setting rules and the only rule I could think of was that comments should be on topic as much as possible. COD was an example of an off topic comment.

That’s all folks. It is indeed another day in Looney Tunes.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Comment #2000!

steebo77 on March 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Comment #2000!

steebo77 on March 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Correction: comment #1200.

steebo77 on March 6, 2011 at 9:55 PM

A GUN-toting teenager who has bombarded right-wing US politician Sarah Palin with threatening letters has been arrested by the FBI in her home state of Alaska.

Stalker Shawn Christy, 19, sent her receipts for a gun he bought and told her to watch his back.

Palin, a supporter of the gun lobby, had won a six-month restraining order against Christy in October.

But her family have revealed that Christy was held in Anchorage, just 50 miles from her home in Wasilla. FBI officers have ordered him to return to Pennsylvania, 3,500 miles away.

He is said to have bombarded her with letters, writing about his “evil” and signing off “your magic enemy”. Ms Palin’s dad, Chuck Heath, 72, said: “She has got security when she goes places but here in Wasilla she doesn’t have that great security other than family and friends.

“Not only has Sarah been threatened, but her whole family

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/07/sarah-palin-gun-stalker-collared-by-fbi-115875-22971487/#ixzz1FsYsuDCk

good job haters now you got the nuts afte rGov Palin…

unseen on March 6, 2011 at 10:02 PM

unseen on March 6, 2011 at 10:02 PM

oops wrong thread…want to post it in the other plain thread…

unseen on March 6, 2011 at 10:08 PM

good job haters now you got the nuts afte rGov Palin…
unseen on March 6, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Please tell me you’re joking.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I didn’t bring up O’Donnell.
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 6:57 PM

HA! I didn’t bring up Palin’s spending. You claimed I was setting rules and the only rule I could think of was that comments should be on topic as much as possible. COD was an example of an off topic comment.

That’s all folks. It is indeed another day in Looney Tunes.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Relative spending IS the topic of the thread, genius.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Imagine if Paiin had said that it was “courageous of Christie” to cut spending when his state was broke how many comments would have been generated.

The difference between dog bites man vs man bites dog.

technopeasant on March 6, 2011 at 10:23 PM

I linked to the USA today story in a vain attempt to get you to stop nipping at my ankles.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM

You linked to a story that had already been linked to several times in this thread. I linked to a Daily Kos entry that showed she cut spending for special-needs kids. My, my. What to believe?

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

As my mother used to say, “It will all come out in the wash.”

If Palin actually cut funding for special-needs kids and it can be proven beyond a shadow a doubt that she did, she will have to defend her actions.

But the other candidates will have to defend their actions in office as well. Every GOP candidate has skeletons. It’s the one who can give the best defense to their skeletons that will most likely win the nomination or at least challenge for it.

technopeasant on March 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Let’s see: Unlimited funding for special-needs kids?

GaltBlvnAtty on March 6, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Relative spending IS the topic of the thread, genius.
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Uh, no it’s not. The topic: Palin to Christie: It’s not courageous to cut spending when you’re broke.

I linked to a Daily Kos entry that showed she cut spending for special-needs kids. My, my. What to believe?
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

My, my, you didn’t use an original source? Tsk Tsk, jackass.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Uh, no it’s not. The topic: Palin to Christie: It’s not courageous to cut spending when you’re broke.

I linked to a Daily Kos entry that showed she cut spending for special-needs kids. My, my. What to believe?
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Uh, yes it is. Maybe the word “spending” escaped your notice.

My, my, you didn’t use an original source? Tsk Tsk, jackass.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Neither did you, jackass. You still haven’t.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM

If Palin actually cut funding for special-needs kids and it can be proven beyond a shadow a doubt that she did, she will have to defend her actions.

technopeasant on March 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM

I was being satirical, technopeasant. Any bad thing about Palin is just plausible enough to be believed.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:56 PM

hmmm true courage? Why did fuel costs soar? Maybe it was just a nationa trend? Perhaps the windfall tax contributed.

source

“In May of this year, Governor Palin proposed disbursing an energy rebate of $1200 to residents of Alaska, asserting this was to reimburse Alaskans for the hefty increase in all fuel prices. Ironically, her ability to offer this largesse is the result of the rising prices of oil, et al.

(Reports from June 2008 verify our fuel prices across the state rose 28%. Alaskans, on the average, have always paid between 10% to 20% more for transportation and home heating costs than most in the lower 48.)

Palin first proposed a twelve month debit card for each eligible Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend* applicant. This card, with a $100 monthly limit, would be valid only at Alaskan utility providers, gas stations and home fuel suppliers. However, because she proffered this concept without doing due diligence on the associated costs to the state (purchase of cards, distribution, oversight, fraud safeguards, record keeping, etc.) this plan was discarded as too cumbersome and expensive to implement and maintain.

Subsequently, in lieu of the debit cards, she mandated that applicable residents receive one gift of $1200.

According to our state’s calculations, 610,768 residents was the estimated figure used to calculate dividend amounts for the PFD stipend. Thus, the payout for the energy rebate alone was projected to be $732,921,600.00. The following identifies some of the flaws in Palin’s ‘energy rebate’ ploy:

1. Remember, the $1200 is not per household, but per individuals of all ages. Ergo, a family of 6 (Palin’s for example: two adults, four children) will realize a net $7200.00 (equivalent to $600.00 per month) for ‘energy rebate’. (Note: In Palin’s family, the baby is not eligible as he was not born until this year. The qualifications are based on residency in 2007.) The theory that a household of six members would consume five times the energy as a one member unit is not validated by any factual study or issued report. While the equivalent of $100 a month would cover the average increase to a one member household, the $600 a month ‘gift’ for a family of six far exceeds the actual reimbursement per stated intent of these funds.

conservador on March 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM

hmmm true courage? Why did fuel costs soar? Maybe it was just a nationa trend? Perhaps the windfall tax contributed.

source

conservador on March 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM

TalkingPointsMemo from September of 2008. Nice. Christie really does need to work on his fanbase a little.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 11:21 PM

48 hours into the post and ddrintn continues to guard the thread like a mother hen…
“Let no comment criticizing the northern star go unanswered…”

Bradky on March 6, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Uh, yes it is. Maybe the word “spending” escaped your notice.

Arrgh! The key word was “courage”. It’s about Palin’s claim that Christie wasn’t courageous to take on the unions because he had to balance the budget by law, a claim which fails to take into account the fact that previous governors raised taxes to balance the budget. How much he cut or didn’t cut relative to what she cut or didn’t cut is secondary at best, and it’s not something I addressed. Therefore, please stop hounding me to answer that question. I’m not employed by Ask Jeeves or Answers dot com or any similar service.

Neither did you, jackass. You still haven’t.
ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM

See above^^^ If I ask you to describe Einstein’s theory of relativity or you are free to ignore me since you haven’t talked about it and it’s not what the thread’s about. But according to your insane rules, I would have the right to hound you for an answer until the end of time.

This conversation is now over.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Yup, how much courage does it take to place a progressive tax on oil companies? Especially during times when it was very popular to beat up on oil companies. Don’t attack Christie on his courage.

conservador on March 6, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Why did fuel costs soar? Maybe it was just a nationa trend? Perhaps the windfall tax contributed.

That socialist Palin single-handedly caused gas prices to soar in 2008, bringing the entire world economy to its knees!!!!!11!!11!1

/conservador

steebo77 on March 6, 2011 at 11:43 PM

You linked to a story that had already been linked to several times in this thread. I linked to a Daily Kos entry that showed she cut spending for special-needs kids. My, my. What to believe?

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Certainly not the Daily Kos. Aren’t they the ones who published the famous “My Congresswoman is dead to me” article just before Gabrielle Giffords was shot?

You won’t find that article on Daily Kos now — just articles about Palin and crosshairs.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the Daily Kos is certainly nowhere near reputable.

unclesmrgol on March 6, 2011 at 11:45 PM

TalkingPointsMemo from September of 2008. Nice. Christie really does need to work on his fanbase a little.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Well, a Palin supporter did link to the DailyKos a bit back.

toliver on March 6, 2011 at 11:45 PM

48 hours into the post and ddrintn continues to guard the thread like a mother hen…
“Let no comment criticizing the northern star go unanswered…”

Bradky on March 6, 2011 at 11:22 PM

48 hours in and conservador is still harping on the same discredited criticism.

steebo77 on March 6, 2011 at 11:46 PM

What is it going to take for you dismal dimwits to figure out that what Alaska does for its people is NOT taxation?! If you insist that oil companies should be able to drill in Alaska for free, I’m sure you’d let oil companies drill on your land without paying a dime…right?!

gryphon202 on March 6, 2011 at 11:49 PM

What is it going to take for you dismal dimwits to figure out that what Alaska does for its people is NOT taxation?! If you insist that oil companies should be able to drill in Alaska for free, I’m sure you’d let oil companies drill on your land without paying a dime…right?!

gryphon202 on March 6, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Should government leases and taxes contribute to the destructive entitlement mentality that plague this country?

Gimmie gimmie gimmie!

Instead of contributing to that cancer, governments should not be cutting entitlement checks but rather lowering taxes.

toliver on March 6, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Good lord but you are a dim bulb, toliver.

powerpro on March 6, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I’m asking for budget data to prove she didn’t cut spending. Do. You. Have. Any.?

Why are you pestering me this question?

Buy Danish on March 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM

She and the legislature raised in about 20% in two years with rising oil prices from 2007-2009. In her last budget, the spending came down to levels that we had as Frank Murkowski left office. In other words, cuts at the end after two years of increases.

AshleyTKing on March 7, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Instead of contributing to that cancer, governments should not be cutting entitlement checks but rather lowering taxes.

toliver on March 6, 2011 at 11:52 PM

It’s not entitlement when you have an ownership interest in something, Toliver. I’m going to make damn good and sure I find out where you live and get you to sign mineral rights over to me…you seem like quite a dimbulb and pushover.

gryphon202 on March 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM

So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she’s actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

Governor Murkowski’s last budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000

Governor Palin’s latest budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000

Reduction from 2007 and 2010: a whopping 9.5% or $1,127,400,000

6.6 billion put in reserves

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Good lord but you are a dim bulb, toliver.

powerpro on March 6, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Says the man with no argument. Perhaps you should stay on the sidelines, with the rest of the …….

It’s not entitlement when you have an ownership interest in something, Toliver. I’m going to make damn good and sure I find out where you live and get you to sign mineral rights over to me…you seem like quite a dimbulb and pushover.

gryphon202 on March 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Ahhhh, the people own the resources and should receive money when they are exploited? Then you must support 0bama’s plan to —- the oil companies then?

Gimmie gimmie!

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Ahhhh, the people own the resources and should receive money when they are exploited? Then you must support 0bama’s plan to —- the oil companies then?

Gimmie gimmie!

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Do you know where they get the money from?????

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:39 AM

conservador on March 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Why are you talking about a fund that has been around before Palin was born????

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Palin claims true courage for cutting with a surplus, a surplus from windfall taxes, progressive taxes on oil. She uses this to attack Christie. How dumb can you get?

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Says the man with no argument. Perhaps you should stay on the sidelines, with the rest of the …….

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 12:31 AM

A. I’m a woman, not a man.

B. I and countless others have already written our arguments OVER AND OVER, chock full of facts which you completely disregard in order to bitterly cling to your false narrative.

You know… I’m going to change what I wrote above. You’re not a dim bulb.

You’re willfully ignorant.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Let me repost this for you because you are kinda thick.

From the WSJ (emphasis added):

Some supporters of Barack Obama see that money coming in and say that John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, must have done what Sen. Obama wants to do — sock those companies with a big fat windfall profit tax. This is a deeply misleading reading of her 2007 tax reform.

A few years ago, Alaska had a big problem. Despite high oil prices, the state’s fiscal future was in peril because the state relies on only three aging oilfields for 80% of its oil and gas tax revenue.

In 2006, then Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican, proposed changing the state’s tax on oil from a gross-revenue to a net-revenue basis. Instead of creaming 10% off the top — which was how the mature oil fields were taxed — Mr. Murkowski pushed to tax oil companies on their profits only, at a rate of 22.5%. The change in tax regime was meant to encourage investment in and development of new fields.

In effect, the state would become the oil companies’ development partner. It would participate in the upside of oil and gas exploration, but only after the companies had recovered the enormous upfront costs of drilling new wells.

These costs are considerable. In Alaska, the locations are remote, the climate is extreme, the infrastructure mostly nonexistent, the environmental rules the strictest in the world, and there is only a short work season of three or four months a year. The costs make any project very risky.

Mr. Murkowski’s plan turned into a disaster. It depended much on trust, but it lacked the transparency and predictability needed to win public confidence. One year after it went into effect, the Petroleum Profits Tax brought in far less revenue than expected and the state suffered a revenue crunch.

Somehow, the legislature had never properly defined accounting procedures and permissible deductions — and the deductions came in much higher than expected. Meanwhile, as the shortfall appeared, a number of state legislators were on trial, under indictment, or under investigation for bribery by the FBI. These included some who should have done due diligence for the taxpayer on the proposal they enacted.

As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.

Relative to the old system, Mrs. Palin’s plan — called “Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share” (ACES) — improves incentives for developing new resources. It ensures the state does well in boom times — as it is doing now — when oil prices are high. But it also hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don’t face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall.

Her plan includes an escalator clause that gives the state a larger share of revenues when oil prices rise. This is common to production-sharing agreements all over the world.

Mr. Obama proposes to give each American a $1,000 check funded by windfall profit taxes to ease the pain of high energy prices. Some say Mrs. Palin’s ACES is like that, because this year every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check as a share of the oil bonanza. (The check comes in addition to the approximately $2,000 every Alaskan will receive this year as a dividend from the Permanent Fund, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 1976 as a way of sharing the state’s mineral wealth with the people.)

A direct share in oil profits for every citizen is the ultimate incentive for more drilling. That’s why in Alaska drilling for oil seems almost universally popular, while other states are drill-phobic.

The real comparison is not between Mr. Obama’s windfall profit tax and Mrs. Palin’s risk-and-profit-sharing plan. It is between Alaska’s constitutional rule — that the people must share directly in the state’s mineral wealth — and Mr. McCain’s proposal that coastal states should share in federal offshore oil revenue. His plan is for the funds to be used for public purposes like roads, schools and conservation. A share of royalties dramatically improves the coastal states’ incentive to support drilling. But if Mr. McCain offered every individual American a royalty check too, he might find it easier to sell his program.

ramrocks on March 6, 2011 at 5:08 PM

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:53 AM

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM

To defend Palin [who I am not attacking] you stoop as far as to endorse anti-capitalist redistribution entitlement schemes that reek of socialism?

If a man on public land wants to risk capital by processing wood, let him pay rent and taxes, but I have zero claims on his profits.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Palin claims true courage for cutting with a surplus, a surplus from windfall taxes, progressive taxes on oil. She uses this to attack Christie. How dumb can you get?

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 12:45 AM

What part of risk-and-profit-sharing plan don’t you understand??

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:56 AM

What part of risk-and-profit-sharing plan don’t you understand??

oldyeller on March 7, 2011 at 12:56 AM

If that proposition was not bullsh-t but true, the citizens of Alaska would be mailing checks instead of receiving the in bad years. When the —- has that ever happened? Never? Not much of a risk then.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:04 AM

If that proposition was not bullsh-t but true, the citizens of Alaska would be mailing checks instead of receiving the in bad years. When the —- has that ever happened? Never? Not much of a risk then.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:04 AM

They OWN the resource you gibbering moron!

They OWN it.

The same way I OWN my property and guess what? In bad times when the oil is cheap the corporation stops pumping oil if it isn’t worth their time to do it.

That doesn’t mean I owe them anything.
There is no risk.
The oil company pays me or they choose not to.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Again Palin’s surplus was due to a progressive tax on oil companies. She claims true courage over Christie because of this. Very dumb.

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:11 AM

They OWN the resource you gibbering moron!

They OWN it.

The same way I OWN my property and guess what? In bad times when the oil is cheap the corporation stops pumping oil if it isn’t worth their time to do it.

That doesn’t mean I owe them anything.
There is no risk.
The oil company pays me or they choose not to.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 AM

You did mention the word “risk” no? If Mobil spends a fortune on a dry hole in Alaska, do the citizens have to write Mobil checks? That would be “risk”. What you described a short time ago was merely a slick way to sell an anti-capitalistic retribution scheme so you could defend Alaska and therefore your Goddess Palin.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Palin’s ACES program established a progressive tax that took more of a percentage with higher prices. With the surplus created she doled out checks. Surplus created by higher TAXES. True courage?

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Are you in a hospital somewhere?

I didn’t mean to call you a moron and I am sorry for that.
You are special in your own way!

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Are you in a hospital somewhere?

I didn’t mean to call you a moron and I am sorry for that.
You are special in your own way!

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Projection is not a valid way to debate.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Ask yourself why is Gov. Parnell of Alaska wanting to amend the ACES program, especially the tax rate? The gravy train is costing Alaska’s oil industry to only invest in maintenance and current oil fields. I keep reading that oil wells are dropping in numbers, smaller independents are at a disadvantage. Still my point is you don’t claim true courage for cutting spending during a surplus you created with higher taxes. Taxes that are now about to be amended because of their consequences to industry.

Run and tell that homeboy!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:27 AM

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM

To defend Palin [who I am not attacking] you stoop as far as to endorse anti-capitalist redistribution entitlement schemes that reek of socialism?

I have no need to defend Palin as she didn’t do anything wrong.

If a man on public land wants to risk capital by processing wood, let him pay rent and taxes, but I have zero claims on his profits.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 12:56 AM

You have zero claims. That’s correct. But…now see if you can follow me here…the Alaskan Constitution is a special case scenario. So your Florida example that you used before does not apply. Get it?

The Alaskan Constitution was set up in a very specific and unique way…and that way does not in anyway affect what the rest of the states do, nor does it suggest that the policy of Alaska should be copied on a federal level.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Palin’s ACES program established a progressive tax that took more of a percentage with higher prices. With the surplus created she doled out checks. Surplus created by higher TAXES. I’m going to keep repeating the same tired talking points regardless of facts because it helps forward my false narrative.

FIFY.

True courage?

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Taking on the Corrupt Bastards Club and ensuring the people got a better deal for the use of their resources? Sure.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:27 AM

You really hate that your boy was smacked down by a girl, dontcha?

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 AM

You have zero claims. That’s correct. But…now see if you can follow me here…the Alaskan Constitution is a special case scenario. So your Florida example that you used before does not apply. Get it?

The Alaskan Constitution was set up in a very specific and unique way…and that way does not in anyway affect what the rest of the states do, nor does it suggest that the policy of Alaska should be copied on a federal level.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Because something is written on paper it is just and right?

And by the way, please show me where in the Alaska Constitution it is spelled out that citizens should receive checks from concerns that have already paid rent and taxes? …I’m not being factious….I’d like to read that text.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Because something is written on paper it is just and right?

Of course not. But that was the agreement made when Alaska became a state and it is the Governor’s job…any AK governor…to ensure the law is followed.

And by the way, please show me where in the Alaska Constitution it is spelled out that citizens should receive checks from concerns that have already paid rent and taxes? …I’m not being factious….I’d like to read that text.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Sorry but I don’t have my Alaska Constitution: Pocket Edition on me so I can’t feed you specifics. I’m sure if you ask though the others on here with a far deeper understanding of the nuances of the AK Constitution and state law will be able to help you find whatever information you seek.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Of course not. But that was the agreement made when Alaska became a state and it is the Governor’s job…any AK governor…to ensure the law is followed.

You are getting me wrong again in the defense of Palin. I have clearly stated – over and over – that it is not Palin’s fault that Alaska has this strange law.

Sorry but I don’t have my Alaska Constitution: Pocket Edition on me so I can’t feed you specifics. I’m sure if you ask though the others on here with a far deeper understanding of the nuances of the AK Constitution and state law will be able to help you find whatever information you seek.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM

i didn’t expect you to be an Alaska Constitution pro, but I’ll GUESS that no such language exists to mandate the checks that I so clearly despise. Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps Garu or unseen or jenfidel would be kind enough to do the required research that may enlighten us.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:59 AM

You are getting me wrong again in the defense of Palin. I have clearly stated – over and over – that it is not Palin’s fault that Alaska has this strange law.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:59 AM

I’m not defending Palin. As I said above, I don’t need to since she’s done nothing to defend.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 2:02 AM

I’m not defending Palin. As I said above, I don’t need to since she’s done nothing to defend.

powerpro on March 7, 2011 at 2:02 AM

But she has been criticized for raising existing energy taxes, no?

I have not taken that particular topic up other than to say the existing system s corrupt and leftist.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 2:07 AM

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Article 9.15 of the Alaskan constitution establishes the permanent fund.

This is a general description of how it is administered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 2:14 AM

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 2:14 AM

The Fund does not include either property taxes on oil company property nor income tax from oil corporations

I’m just starting to have fun with this sh-t.

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Hell yeah Toliver! We are just getting started!

Christie doesn’t need to convince people that he is courageous!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 3:57 AM

Damnnnn all the populists masquerading as conservatives must be shuttering in fear knowing that their Kim Kardashian is being exposed for her progressive taxes on oil companies to the point of double the revenue needed for Alaska’s govt. She tried to outcourage Christie and only reminded conservatives how she took money from successful industries and spread the wealth like a pro!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 4:08 AM

Shuddering…

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 4:14 AM

I would take the former governor of Alaska making decisions as president about our energy policy moving forward over any other member of the GOP. No one in the GOP can touch Palin on energy policy.

Especially this guy. Evidently a big solar and wind farm kind of guy. I wonder if the Oil Companies would rather do business with the ‘Socialist’ Palin or the ‘Enviro’ Christie.

Gov’s Earth Day Pledge: No LNG, offshore drilling
http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2010-04-29/Front_Page/Govs_Earth_Day_pledge_No_LNG_offshore_drilling.html

NJ Governor Chris Christie vetoes liquefied natural gas operation
http://protectingourwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/nj-governor-chris-christie-vetoes-liquefied-natural-gas-operation/

Until we have a president with the guts to say drill here, drill now then we are screwed. ANWR should have been pumping crude for years now, but instead it hasn’t even been tapped. We need more development and more refineries built. Why do we refuse to take advantage of our vast natural resources? Is it because it would hurt the planet?

That makes no sense unless you believe the ‘Climate Change’ bullshit. We need to develop our PROVEN natural resources now and not worry about this mythical ‘Green Energy’ solution that is decades away from being developed.

The marketplace will develop the new solution when it’s cost effective to replace crude oil with this new solution. I say it will take about forty or fifty years. In the meantime wind and solar are not going to cut it.

Drill Baby, Drill and don’t stop until it’s all gone. Which will be long after we are all pushing up daisies.

chief on March 7, 2011 at 5:20 AM

When did it become courageous to do your job?

This seems like the problem to me…what do these idiotic politicians think the purpose of them being elected is? To get rich and tell us what they could do? I’m sorry, there is no such thing as a courageous politician anymore. Courageous would be a politician that fought every single day without fail to correct the wrongs, attack the democrats, and ignore their response no matter what and never to fear not being re-elected.

withmanitisimpossible on March 7, 2011 at 6:50 AM

She and the legislature raised in about 20% in two years with rising oil prices from 2007-2009. In her last budget, the spending came down to levels that we had as Frank Murkowski left office. In other words, cuts at the end after two years of increases.
AshleyTKing on March 7, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Sorry, you didn’t provide any primary sources to answer ddrintn’s nagging question. Please attach documents to support your assertions./

Buy Danish on March 7, 2011 at 7:30 AM

It is when you live in Commieville.
Look at Wisconsin.

esnap on March 7, 2011 at 8:23 AM

So i guess Palin left a big red palm print on Christie than…..Since this thread has tried to paint Palin as Stalin and a mullah the christie love cult doesn’t know what too do…

unseen on March 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Hey Unseen,

actually I am painting Palin as Palin. Palin raised taxes on oil companies. She created a surplus by raising taxes. It’s the truth and it hurts I know.

Christie on the other hand is setting up to win all Americans not just the echo chamber, Mickey Mouse populists who are upset that Christie is succeeding without dividing.

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Guess who just got polled as America’s hottest dude…. YUP Christie!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

ROFL….sure sure sure….you have been debunked numerous times in this thread alone….it isn’t worth my time to explain how wrong you are….

unseen on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

LMAO! ROFL! HAHA! LOL!

Christie is tearing up Palin in the polls and winning folks from the other side of the aisle!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Christie is tearing up Palin in the polls and winning folks from the other side of the aisle!

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Chrstie is AFRAID to run. He admited it out of his own mouth. ROFL…only a loser backs a blowhard bully that is too afraid of Obama.

unseen on March 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Hey quitters never win, did you not learn that in little league?

Christie is on track, I hope you are as passionate in campaigning for him as you are in attacking him. I would do the same for Palin

conservador on March 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM

If Palin actually cut funding for special-needs kids and it can be proven beyond a shadow a doubt that she did, she will have to defend her actions.

technopeasant on March 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM
I was being satirical, technopeasant. Any bad thing about Palin is just plausible enough to be believed.

ddrintn on March 6, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Common sense may be required here. Palin has a special needs child, travels all over the country giving speeches to raise money for special needs children’s charities, etc. – and from what I’ve read doesn’t charge a speaking fee for most and perhaps charges a reduced fee for some – then you are going
to believe she cut spending in Alaska for special needs children?

Amjean on March 7, 2011 at 5:54 PM

toliver on March 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM
Are you in a hospital somewhere?

I didn’t mean to call you a moron and I am sorry for that.
You are special in your own way!

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:21 AM

You were right the first time

Amjean on March 7, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13