Post-Palin Alaska has largest debt burden in US

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobertoq, Apr 1, 2010.

  1. bobertoq macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #1
    Article:
    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0331/postpalin-alaska-largest-debt-burden/

    I thought the Tea Party was all about fiscal conservatism?
     
  2. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #2
    Oh christ, I'm only going to post in here because 70% is pretty horrific, but I'm also going to unsubscribe instantly because of what InTheNet will have to say.
     
  3. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #3
    So she would have no problem being a president then. Here's the proof. For her, it would be the same old job, only the office would be nicer.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Oh wow. That is ridiculous. I can;t believe she's trying to claim fiscal responsibility.
     
  5. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #5
    Just to be fair.

    While Alaska's massive debt burden can't be blamed entirely on Palin's two-and-a-half-year stint as governor, she did face similar debt problems while mayor of Wasilla, and those appear to be of her own making.

    I'm not saying none of it was her fault but it's not ALL her fault either. Many states have money problems right now.

    People need to be fair no matter who it is.
     
  6. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #6
    Actually, she should meet a certain Austrian from Terminator 1, 2 and 3. They could terminate some debt. And terminate some more. And become bankrupt together.
     
  7. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #7
    The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism.

    And if you probed a bit deeper into the article you linked to, Megan Carpentier's investigation from The Washington Independent, (she a former liberal gossip columnist from Wonkette) you would understand that these debts are from unfunded pension plan liabilities; hardly something the governor can control and something Alaskans themselves have known for a long time, created slowly over years and many administrations. But do go ahead with referencing the misleading Palin crucifixion...
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    You are correct, of course.

    I should find out how much Blagojevich left us with. Of course, he lives a few blocks away, maybe I should knock on his door and ask him.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    This is about the equivalent of tacking our 12 tril. national debt on one year of Obama presidency.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    Zombie Acorn, what is being "tacked on" is the general commentary that the present Obama policies will add around a trillion a year more to the debt. He's only on the hook for a couple of trillion or thereabouts, so far. But it's the future legacy of additional debt that's the problem.

    If this is correct: "...these debts are from unfunded pension plan liabilities..." and this is seen as a problem at 70%, consider that the unfunded liabilities of the US government are somewhere north of $70 trillion, or five times the national GDP.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    speaking of debt......and staying with state budget debts so my question to you isn't completely off topic......what's going on with the Texas state budget?

    A few weeks ago in the lead up to your state Republican gubernatorial primary, I read this story that said;

    is this true? all this time I thought you've been telling us how fiscally responsible you texans are?
     
  12. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #12


    They will certainly miss that federal money after they secede eh?
     
  13. macfan881 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    #13
    The whole bridge to knowwhere comes back into play I guess now ;)
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    Macky-Mac, I dunno. Last I heard it was around $7 billion. One lucky aspect is that we operate on a two-year budget, so it's not a $17 billion chunk for one year.

    I know that sales tax receipts are down, and unemployment comp is up. Unless oil production picks up, there's a lessening of royalties. Probably, expenses are up on Medicaid and suchlike. Less problem, percentage-wise, than other states, but nobody's totally escaping the effects of this mess.
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Republicans are not the party of fiscal conservatism no matter how much they say it. It's almost as bad as saying you are fair and balanced.

    Google national debt by president and you'll find a dozen sources that demonstrate that since Nixon, every republican has been fiscally less responsible than the democrats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    mcrain, the problem with looking at that aspect of the past is that it's irrelevant. Back then, looking at Bush I and earlier, we still had more exporting industry and far more savings. We did not have the immense private-sector debt, much less the accumulated debt of these recent three or so years.

    The Bush II years led to the ascendancy of what a lot of us call RINOs: Republicans in name only. They are little different from Democrats as to spending on social programs, as witness the No Child Left Behind and the Free Pills program adapted from Al Gore's campaign proposal.

    All in all, it's a waste of time to look back to point blame, unless you speak to specific decisions or actions. Just saying "The Republicans" or "The Democrats" accomplishes nothing. That's why, e.g., I point to specific laws and specific policies. Sometimes the names are indeed pertinent; sometimes not. Greenspan's interest rate policies of the FRB had much to do with the last two financial bubbles, for instance.

    For now, the issue is the incredible amount of spending that's going on and the ever-accumulating national debt. We're in a similar behavior pattern to that of Argentina of the 1990s, and you better do some serious praying that we don't wind up with the same results.

    Edit-add. A snippet in just now, from the number-crunchers: "Then there is the government itself, the great destabilizer. It is in horrible shape. Klarman points out that total U.S. public debt at all levels (federal, state, local and in the GSEs such as Fannie Mae) now makes up 141% of gross domestic product. That’s the fourth highest in the world. The only countries with more debt are Zimbabwe, Lebanon and Japan. Not great company."
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    Irrelevant to a historical analysis? My point was that historically, the republicans have not been fiscally conservative.

    Would the Democrats who implement Health Care Reform (in republican form), cap & trade (a republican idea), and drilling be call DINOs?

    I wasn't trying to point out blame, merely the historical performance of the republicans and democrats while having white house control. If it were about "blame" the issue is way, way, way bigger. Reagan had democrats in congress. Clinton had pressure from republicans and a tech bubble. I recogonize that.

    Well, we got ourselves into this mess, and we can get ourselves out of it. Clearly we shouldn't follow the examples of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Our guides should be Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Nixon, and maybe even Truman and Eisenhower (but they had the end of WWII and that debt with subsequent economic boom).
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    "(but they had the end of WWII and that debt with subsequent economic boom)."

    Yup. But it's the reason for that boom that's important.

    Partly, it was due to the vast amount of savings accumulated during the war. The citizenry had savings, not credit card debt or upside-down mortgages.

    We were pretty much the only surviving developed industrial nation without war damage. And we were an oil-exporting nation. We were the suppliers, as is China today. The countries of the rest of the world were consumers of our products.

    Get the picture? Can you see why there is little optimism about any sort of real recovery?

    We've made of ourselves a debtor nation, both in the public sector and the private sector. Consumers, not suppliers. We're reliant upon others to purchase our debt, praying for their continuing beneficience--and that beneficience is waning.

    I see no evidence of change in this national pattern of fiscal behavior which got us into the present troubles. Such being the case, how do we get out of the mess? Might as well pray to the Easter Bunny...

    Stipulate that somehow we'll bootstrap our way back up: It took some thirty years to get where we are. How long will it take to get anywhere near back to solvency?
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    That's five times the current GDP and considering a debt stretched out over decades.

    That's like saying, "I can't afford to buy this house, because it costs five times my yearly income."
     
  20. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #20
    But we're running at a massive deficit.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    So do we shut down the government until the debt is paid? Or do we find a way to pay down the debt and care for the citizens?

    I think both can be accomplished.

    BTW... one way to help pay down the debt? Stop spending as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. Can you imagine the outrage you'd feel if we spent as much as the rest of the world combined on welfare? You wouldn't put up with such a thing. But for some reason we accept when this incredible imbalance is put toward guns and bombs.

    I just don't get that.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Neither do I. Let the ME destroy itself and let's come up with viable alternative energy. Time to take care of our own for a change.
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Events before and after presidencies play a large part in what the national debt does, each presidency isn't made inside of a bubble.
     
  24. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #24
    I don't like the fact that we are spending as much money as we are on anything. The war on terror is a joke and can never be won. We can best protect our country by protecting it from our own soil. Welfare is an atrocity that promotes poverty rather than helps it. The more free **** we hand out the more people are going to ask for it.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    An atrocity (extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal)?

    That's a rather hyperbolic assessment.

    Are there legitimate needs with regards to poverty? If so, how do you think they should be addressed?
     

Share This Page