1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

People who Take Sarah Palin too Lightly

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Hardsheller, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    No my argument is with you. You are using numbers that have no connection to the original proposition.

    My original bet was that if you take the total expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid for Alaska and D.C. That D.C. would have a higher per capita number when it comes to Federal Expenditures on those two Entitlement Programs.

    You have not proven me wrong.
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Seems from the SSA numbers you are incorrect.

    Regardless what does it prove either way?
     
  3. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    That Alaskans are not at the front of the welfare line like you originally claimed.
     
  4. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Crabby is hilarious. :laugh:

    He puts out some off topic nonsense about something that he knows absolutely nothing about...

    And then when he is called on it he says "what does it prove either way" as in "what difference does it make". :laugh:

    This is priceless.

    You can't make up this kind of stuff. :laugh:

    It's like a stupid sitcom.
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do me a favor. Break that chart down, and tell me what the expentadure/profit rate is, and then compare it to what it could be if Alaskans were TRULY able to exploit their oil. Another thing. My argument is not whether or not she is a fiscal conservative. But what, exactly does the HuffPo piece tell us ? It is a non-sourced opinion piece. My statement is a question put to you specifically.

    Is your position that Alaskans actually have unfettered access to profit from their oil ?
     
    #45 Bro. Curtis, Feb 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2010
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I gave you the link. You can see the chart formatted there.

    Did I say that? Nope.
     
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't understand what the chart is saying. I don't know how it relates to my claim that Alaska would be better off without federal constraints. Help me out.
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The chart shows money Alaska receives from oil and gas resources broken down into various categories. Totaled all together it is quite a chunk of money.

    Maybe the following helps:

    I wish my state could afford to pay me @1,200 this year simply because I live here. This $1,200 comes on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account. Not bad, $3,200 from the state government. That would help my budget. And this was the payments made in 2008. According to the state of Alaska's official website, the budget for Alaska in FY2009 will be approximately $9 billion, with close to $11 billion in revenue.

    http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/index.htm

     
    #48 Crabtownboy, Feb 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2010
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So how does your chart disprove my point ? I don't care how much money they get now, my point is the would get MORE, if allowed. My point is, people shouldn't complain, or try to twist statistics around to make people they don't like look bad. How does your chart disprove federal intervention has kept Alaska from being able to support it'self ?
     
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They were running a budget surplus in 2008. With the fall of the price of oil and Palin's bloated budget for 2009 they began running a deficit. Why not institute an income tax to make up the difference? Or, stopping the payments to citizens for simply living there would help offset the deficit.
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, because the federal government always makes things better, doesn't it ?

    You still have not answered my question. Would Alaska's revenue problems be better solved with less federal intervention ?
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They might be worse. It is the Feds who signed on to the agreement giving Alaska tons of money from the oil and gas. I do not know if Louisiana has as sweet a deal over the off shore Gulf of Mexico oil or not. Also, I do not know what type of agreement exists between Texas or Oklahoma and the Feds over oil resources.

    Good research project for you.
     
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You made the claim, so the research should be yours. Also, Alaska has nowhere near the welfare burden Louisiana does, or Texas, for that matter.

    Montana had a plan, while Bush was president, to become energy independant, and the feds cut the legs off. I find it humorous that the people who complain about federal tax $ being used to build roads and other neccessary state infrastructure are the same ones telling us we are ruining the Earth drilling for oil.
     
  14. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Really? Does every citizen of Louisiana receive an annual check from the government simply because they live there. If every citizen of Louisiana and Texas received $3000 from the government for just living there how many could be taken off their official welfare list? If you and they are so against money being spent by the government on such programs why don't they refuse accepting it?


    Why did the Bush administration nix the Montana program?
     
    #54 Crabtownboy, Feb 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2010
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'll bet you 100 pushups that if you average the welfare payments given to the population of Louisiana it would amount to at least $3000 for the entire population..






    Pressure by liberal commie enviromentalist wacko idiots. And it was congress, under Bush's watch, so there's plenty of blame to go around. Spineless wimps, every one of them.
     
    #55 Bro. Curtis, Feb 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2010
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting comment. Do you have a link that will verify this or not? Of course the population of the state of Louisiana is quite a bit more than Alaska.

    Louisiana's populatoin; 4,492,076
    Alaska's population; 698,473

    Hardly a fair comparison. The percentage of the population receiving federal money would be a fairer comparison.

    I have not found information on Louisiana. I am not at home and do not have time to research this further at the moment.
     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, it wouldn't. But let's play. Which has the bigger population % on welfare, and why ?
     
  18. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Here is what I have found so far:

    People on welfare per 100:

    Alaska ..................... 2.4 per 100 people
    Louisiana.................. 1.241 per 100 people

    http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita

    Federal welfare expenditures by state:

    Alaska ........................ $165.27 per capita
    Louisiana .................... $139.98 per capita

    http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cach...xpenditures+by+state&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



    So, Alaska has a higher percentage on welfare ... and these on welfare not only get welfare but also the fedeal money simply for living in Alaska. According to the chart Alaska is 7th highest in the nation, while Louisiana is 34th. I had thought Louisiana would be higher.
     
    #58 Crabtownboy, Feb 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2010
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'll admit you have done your research and answered most of my questions. But it is still my opinion that federal prevention of Alaskans drilling for their own oil costs you and me more than if they were allowed to.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You may be right. I am not sure how much this would impact the price of oil. With the increasing use of oil by China and India the impact may be slight. I have found the following.

    7.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that is on land proposed to be drilled.

    Note:(I take this figure with a grain of salt as I have found numbers all over the place on this one. I have a feeling that no one really knows how much or how little oil is there.)

    http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cach...+north+slope+reserve&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    20,680,000 bbl/day consumed in the US data is from 2007
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
     
    #60 Crabtownboy, Feb 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2010
Loading...