Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
9/17/2020 5:59:48 PM
Posted: 9/4/2008 3:04:15 PM EDT
When talking to libs, you may find them starting to Parrot the MSM’s claim that Gov. Palin should not talk about wasting taxpayer money because “Alaska receives about $14,000 per citizen from the federal government. That's more than any other state, and a good $4,000 more than every other state except Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota.”

These may be accurate numbers, but the MSM is using them fraudulently. The key here is per citizen. Alaska has a relatively low population when compared to many states.

If you have a friend of realitive that is influenced by the MSM, tell them to look at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and make comparisons to actual dollars spent per state.

Here are a few examples;
Federal spending, 2004($1000)

Alaska = 8,445,389

California = 232,387,168
Illinois = 76,828,360
Texas = 141,858,480
Maryland = 64,725,924

Now for a real eye opener, compare the size of the state to Federal spending. According to the census site, Alaska has 574,951.26 sq miles. Now compare a tiny state like Maryland which has 9,773.82 sq miles, and Federal spending of 64,725,924.

That means Alaska is about 59 times bigger than Maryland, but the Federal spending for Maryland is 7 ½ times more!

Alaska is over 3 ½ times larger than California, but Federal spending in California is 27 times greater!

Plus since the Federal Government owns or manages about 65% of Alaska, you would expect federal spending. (As a side note, this kind of explains why the Alaska congressional delegation has never been shy about asking for federal money)

So when you hear someone start talking about all the Federal money Sara Palin spent, you can straighten them out.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:07:17 PM EDT
No, I am afraid you are wrong.  Alaska receives the most federal funds on a per-capita basis and in absolute terms.

But, it's a new state, it's vast, it is woefully under-developed in rural areas off the road system, and frankly, the federal government owes us after locking up ANWR and other lands to development.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:07:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adhahn:
When talking to libs, you may find them starting to Parrot the MSM’s claim that Gov. Palin should not talk about wasting taxpayer money because “Alaska receives about $14,000 per citizen from the federal government. That's more than any other state, and a good $4,000 more than every other state except Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota.”

These may be accurate numbers, but the MSM is using them fraudulently. The key here is per citizen. Alaska has a relatively low population when compared to many states.

If you have a friend of realitive that is influenced by the MSM, tell them to look at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and make comparisons to actual dollars spent per state.

Here are a few examples;
Federal spending, 2004($1000)

Alaska = 8,445,389

California = 232,387,168
Illinois = 76,828,360
Texas = 141,858,480
Maryland = 64,725,924

Now for a real eye opener, compare the size of the state to Federal spending. According to the census site, Alaska has 574,951.26 sq miles. Now compare a tiny state like Maryland which has 9,773.82 sq miles, and Federal spending of 64,725,924.

That means Alaska is about 59 times bigger than Maryland, but the Federal spending for Maryland is 7 ½ times more!

Alaska is over 3 ½ times larger than California, but Federal spending in California is 27 times greater!

Plus since the Federal Government owns or manages about 65% of Alaska, you would expect federal spending. (As a side note, this kind of explains why the Alaska congressional delegation has never been shy about asking for federal money)

So when you hear someone start talking about all the Federal money Sara Palin spent, you can straighten them out.


Good information, taggage.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:10:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
No, I am afraid you are wrong.  Alaska receives the most federal funds on a per-capita basis and in absolute terms.

But, it's a new state, it's vast, it is woefully under-developed in rural areas off the road system, and frankly, the federal government owes us after locking up ANWR and other lands to development.


If I'm wrong, I'll delete the post, but I got the numbers from the US Census site. What am I misunderstanding?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:10:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
No, I am afraid you are wrong.  Alaska receives the most federal funds on a per-capita basis and in absolute terms.

But, it's a new state, it's vast, it is woefully under-developed in rural areas off the road system, and frankly, the federal government owes us after locking up ANWR and other lands to development.


So are the numbers in his post wrong?  If so, please educate us.  Your post doesn't help.

rr
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:16:02 PM EDT
I think he's trying to say that what money AK does get, they get mostly per each citizen, not per square mile.

I may be wrong though.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:16:56 PM EDT
Regardless of the numbers, the bottom line is that Republicans are all for small government . . . except when they are for big government.  And they are easily as greedy as Demokrats when it comes to bringing the pork home.  Can you say Ted Stennis?  Tom Delay?  Limbaugh apparently can't prounounce those names.  He can say William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana a hundred times in 3 hours, but you'd never know about Ted Stevens or Tom Delay from listening to him.  When the Dems spend our money it's "socialism."  When the GOP spends our money, it's "investment in the infrastructure,"  "good business development," or "national security."


It's a bipartisan effort to bankrupt us.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:17:14 PM EDT
do I have to explain per-capita for the second time today?

good grief people....see my sigline
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:20:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 3:21:27 PM EDT by gunslinger10mm]
Their Sen Stevens (R) is a master of getting funding for his pet projects. That's probably why this is so.
He is currently being investigated with regards to this.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:24:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goosey:
I think he's trying to say that what money AK does get, they get mostly per each citizen, not per square mile.

I may be wrong though.


That was the gist of the OP. MSM is using per capita, which looks bad without other data, such as actual size of the state, amount of federal land, etc.

Well, I certainly don’t want to spread misinformation, so if the numbers are wrong, someone please correct me and I’ll try to get rid of the thread.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:26:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
and frankly, the federal government owes us after locking up ANWR and other lands to development.


And that is why the pork barrel spending continues.  "The government owes me".

A good bit of that Federal money went towards things like a transportation hub in Wasilla.  Things that should have been funded with local money, not Federal.  And the "Bridge to Nowhere"... that was strictly an Alaska issue.  Not a dime of Federal money should have ever been spent there.

This is why I am always vehemently opposed to anything that will increase the size of the Federal government... the bigger it is, the more hands are dipping into the trough.  It simply cannot be avoided... someone will get into a position like Ted Stevens, where they can milk the cow for all she's worth, and use that money to buy votes to stay in office.  It's wrong.  And the money corrupts everyone... it's hard to say no when you really, really need the XYZ Project.

Sarah palin stood in line for money like everyone else.  That isn't an indictment against her so much as it is against the whole bloated corrupt system.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:26:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:
do I have to explain per-capita for the second time today?

good grief people....see my sigline


Maybe. Who are you going to explain it to?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:26:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:
do I have to explain per-capita for the second time today?

good grief people....see my sigline


Does reading comprehension count?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:29:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adhahn:

Originally Posted By Goosey:
I think he's trying to say that what money AK does get, they get mostly per each citizen, not per square mile.

I may be wrong though.


That was the gist of the OP. MSM is using per capita, which looks bad without other data, such as actual size of the state, amount of federal land, etc.

Well, I certainly don’t want to spread misinformation, so if the numbers are wrong, someone please correct me and I’ll try to get rid of the thread.


I don't see anything wrong with your numbers. Some things are going to cost more due to the vast size of the state, and the number of people living there isn't going to effect that at all.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:43:04 PM EDT
Roger that DanielT.

So are we satisfied that the numbers from US Census show California receiving 27 times more actual (not per capita) Federal spending than Alaska?

Raven, you seemed pretty confident in your post that something was incorrect with mine. Please help me out if I am misunderstanding something.

I’m going to let the thread run its course unless someone corrects the numbers.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:54:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adhahn:

Originally Posted By raven:
No, I am afraid you are wrong.  Alaska receives the most federal funds on a per-capita basis and in absolute terms.

But, it's a new state, it's vast, it is woefully under-developed in rural areas off the road system, and frankly, the federal government owes us after locking up ANWR and other lands to development.


If I'm wrong, I'll delete the post, but I got the numbers from the US Census site. What am I misunderstanding?


I'd have to look it up.  I always knew we were the highest per capita, but it shocked me to find out we had the most pork in absolute terms as well.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 4:26:53 PM EDT
So if one AR15 owner uses its power for evil, that makes all AR15 owners evil?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 4:51:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunslinger10mm:
Their Sen Stevens (R) is a master of getting funding for his pet projects. That's probably why this is so.
He is currently being investigated with regards to this.


He has been getting money to get rural alaska out of the third world. If you think he has been getting money for pet projects come up to rural alaska and live for at least a year. The money he gets goes all over alaska to bring alaska up to par with other states.
Top Top