Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
...nothing against Governor Palin, but why should Alaska get any "stimulus" money? They always run a budget surplus and even give each Alaskan a pretty big check from the oil proceeds each year. They still got the earmark money for the bridge to nowhere, but without the requirement that they actually build it.
Really, is there any argument that can be made for sending our hard-earned tax dollars to Alaska? Or Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, or any of the other states that are home to more animals than humans? "Stimulus"? Stimulate what in those states?
|
There are still taxpayers in other than urban settings, and they too buy things, and they too have homes foreclosed, and they too have businesses going belly-up, and they have 401k's that imploded, and all of the stuff the urbanites of MA, NY, MI, IL, CA, PA, NJ, MD, OH, et cetera felt. Or are they less important because of their residence than big-city urbanites?
If there is going to be this stimulus package - which I still question the need - is your concept that only inner-city folk should be :helped" by it?
Regarding Alaska, the tax rebate that went to AK residents did not involve federal taxes, but state. And the Bridge to Nowhere is no different than a host of rust-belt pork projects - all thanks to those 9% approval rated folk who keep their Congressional seats decade after decade.