NationStates Jolt Archive

So, your entire argument for Sarah Palin's fiscal conservatism... is a fantasy scenario YOU constructed about her?


Right right right right .... Oh wait, no, never mind. I based my story on expectations which are based on her past performance transposed into a Washington future. She cut out 500,000,000 dollars worth of fat during her first two years as governor, $230 million from the budget the first year and $268 million the second year. She operates a government in the black, not the red so it doesn't transpose itself into other states and especially not Washington, but there is still hope that fiscal conservatism can turn DC around too. She's had to fight both parties in her legislature to get things done in Alaska and McCain and Palin will have to fight both parties together in DC to get it done there as well. AND, in addition to cuts in spending, she STILL gets the big community projects working, like the sports Stadium as far back as Wasilla and the Natural Gas Pipeline as Governor. Theodore Roosevelt's Robber Barons are Palin's Oil Conglomerates.

How do you imagine an Obama presidency? Besides Obama sending all the troops into Pakistan and driving all the small businesses into bankruptcy court by raising taxes on every small company that makes more than 250,000 annually? Outside of the obvious, what do you imagine he's going to do? Why are you voting for him?

So, your entire argument for Sarah Palin's fiscal conservatism... is a fantasy scenario YOU constructed about her?

It's brilliant really. No way to possibly be wrong when you claim Palin is a fiscal conservative, just use the term differently than everyone else uses it, and substantiate that claim by citing events that never happened.

Much like Balderdash is a child rapist, given that in 2025 he raped a child.

Right right right right .... Oh wait, no, never mind. I based by story on expectations which are based on her past performance transposed into a Washington future. She cut out 500,000,000 dollars worth of fat during her first two years as governor, $230 million from the budget the first year and $268 million the second year. She operates a government in the black, not the red so it doesn't transpose itself into other states and especially not Washington, but there is still hope that fiscal conservatism can turn DC around too. She's had to fight bothy parties in her legislature to get things done and McCain and Palin will have to fight both parties in DC to get it done as well. AND, in addition to cuts in spending, she STILL gets the big community projects working, like the sports Stadium as far back as Wasilla and the Natural Gas Pipeline as Governor. Theodore Roosevelt's Robber Barons are Palin's Oil Conglomerates.

So - fiscal conservatism is about spending money on 'important' things like sports stadiums?

Do you actually even know what 'fiscal conservatism' means? I mean, seriously?

It's brilliant really. No way to possibly be wrong when you claim Palin is a fiscal conservative, just use the term differently than everyone else uses it, and substantiate that claim by citing events that never happened.

It's awesome. Palin is a fiscal conservative because she misappropriates money under false pretences, spends it on things like a sports stadium and... what was it, $1400 cash mailouts? Increases taxes on the main industry, defrauds her expense accounts, and sells solid assets at a massive loss.

Down our way, I'm not sure that definition of 'fiscal conservatism' would hold.

But it's okay, because Baldy has these fantasies about Ms Palin. Who needs evidence when you can consult a wetdream.

her model of femininity

Ya gotta love it. Stop the sexism against Sarah!!!

Right right right right .... Oh wait, no, never mind. I based my story on expectations which are based on her past performance transposed into a Washington future. She cut out 500,000,000 dollars worth of fat during her first two years as governor, $230 million from the budget the first year and $268 million the second year. She operates a government in the black, not the red so it doesn't transpose itself into other states and especially not Washington, but there is still hope that fiscal conservatism can turn DC around too. She's had to fight both parties in her legislature to get things done in Alaska and McCain and Palin will have to fight both parties together in DC to get it done there as well. AND, in addition to cuts in spending, she STILL gets the big community projects working, like the sports Stadium as far back as Wasilla and the Natural Gas Pipeline as Governor. Theodore Roosevelt's Robber Barons are Palin's Oil Conglomerates.

Um. This is a nice work of fiction.

Cutting less than 2% from the proposed budget is big reform?

Increasing taxes and relying heavily on funds from Washington is a model for fiscal conservatism?

And you know, unlike Teddy and the Robber Barons, Sarah is actually in pretty tight with the oil companies. Drill, baby, drill, remember.

So - fiscal conservatism is about spending money on 'important' things like sports stadiums?
Not just ANY kind of sports stadium: it's a
HOCKEY ARENA!
What could be more important than that? Answer wrong, and a pit bull with lipstick will gnaw your ankle off

How do you imagine an Obama presidency? Besides Obama sending all the troops into Pakistan and driving all the small businesses into bankruptcy court by raising taxes on every small company that makes more than 250,000 annually? Outside of the obvious, what do you imagine he's going to do? Why are you voting for him?

EDIT: I saw this arrived after I'd responded to the main body of the post.

Why am I voting for Obama? Who said I was?

As for the rest of the post... I happen to be in a position to know the fiscal turnovers of a few of the small businesses around here, and even raising taxes on a mere $250,000 p.a. wouldn't affect quite a few of them. I think maybe your conception of 'all the small businesses' and mine (and reality's, apparently) might be a little different.

Is it worth mentioning that raising taxes doesn't automatically equate to bankruptcy?

Is it worth pointing out that the relatively laissez-faire approach of the Bush regime has put us in the position where major bank institutions are going under?

Is it worth pointing out that Obama has never said he was going to send 'all the troops' into Pakistan, or anywhere else?


Is it worth pointing out that playing Palin as a reformer is a joke - when the McCain/Palin ticket's BIG item has been earmark reform, and THEIR OWN party has said they won't let them do it?

How can you seriously buy into that 'maverick' bullshit, when they are running with the express support of a party, and that party has expressly said they won't let them BE mavericks?

Not just ANY kind of sports stadium: it's a
HOCKEY ARENA!
What could be more important than that? Answer wrong, and a pit bull with lipstick will gnaw your ankle off

Well, down our way, it might be argued that... feeding hungry orphans? I don't know.. that kind of thing... might be more important. Maybe.

But then, we're all bleedingheart liberals, down our way.

Hmmm.

How is it if you oppose abortion, you're protecting a right to life... but if you oppose the death penalty, you're a 'bleedingheart liberal'...

Sorry, got distracted.

EDIT: I saw this arrived after I'd responded to the main body of the post.

Why am I voting for Obama? Who said I was?

As for the rest of the post... I happen to be in a position to know the fiscal turnovers of a few of the small businesses around here, and even raising taxes on a mere $250,000 p.a. wouldn't affect quite a few of them. I think maybe your conception of 'all the small businesses' and mine (and reality's, apparently) might be a little different.

Is it worth mentioning that raising taxes doesn't automatically equate to bankruptcy?

Is it worth pointing out that the relatively laissez-faire approach of the Bush regime has put us in the position where major bank institutions are going under?

Is it worth pointing out that Obama has never said he was going to send 'all the troops' into Pakistan, or anywhere else?


Is it worth pointing out that playing Palin as a reformer is a joke - when the McCain/Palin ticket's BIG item has been earmark reform, and THEIR OWN party has said they won't let them do it?

How can you seriously buy into that 'maverick' bullshit, when they are running with the express support of a party, and that party has expressly said they won't let them BE mavericks?

Ah, so then your answer is that there are no good reasons to actually vote for Obama then is it? Thats interestingly enough the same conclusion I came to.

Ah, so then your answer is that there are no good reasons to actually vote for Obama then is it?
What he said was that you were mistaken to assume he was an Obama voter in the first place.

Um. This is a nice work of fiction.

Cutting less than 2% from the proposed budget is big reform?

Increasing taxes and relying heavily on funds from Washington is a model for fiscal conservatism?

And you know, unlike Teddy and the Robber Barons, Sarah is actually in pretty tight with the oil companies. Drill, baby, drill, remember.

Fiction?

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin cuts $237 million from capital budget (http://www.alaskareport.com/z46286_palin_budget.htm)

Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday axed about 10 percent of the spending that state legislators approved for hometown projects. (http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html)

Combined, about 12% from the first year and just under 10% the second year, it's substantially more than 2% unless you meant to type 12%...

Ya gotta love it. Stop the sexism against Sarah!!!

Wiki used the masculinity description for Roosevelt, I had to use the equivalent for Palin, are you suggesting that the opposite of masculinity isn't femininity? If not, then my bad.

Wiki used the masculinity description for Roosevelt, I had to use the equivalent for Palin, are you suggesting that the opposite of masculinity isn't femininity? If not, then my bad.

I was just giving you shit. :eek::tongue:

But the article Khadgar linked earlier about stopping the sexism against Palin made a good point. ;)

Ah, so then your answer is that there are no good reasons to actually vote for Obama then is it? Thats interestingly enough the same conclusion I came to.

So - you ignored the fact that I pointed out almost every point you had made was either bullshit, hysterical, or hysterical bullshit.

And, you chose not to engage the point that Palin's own party has said that she will be restricted from utilising power for reform.

On top of that - you asked me why I was voting for Obama, you didn't ask for reasons why one should, so to pretend my reply equated to "there are no good reasons" is dishonest.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding on my part, as the state press release was very confusingly written.

But you can straighten that out, right?

Out of a final budget that ran to $4.3 billion, how much did Palin actually veto out of the budget?

Out of the final budget how many programs did Palin actually end up vetoing and keeping from being funded out of how many programs proposed?

Still waiting for a response.....

I was just giving you shit. :eek::tongue:

But the article Khadgar linked earlier about stopping the sexism against Palin made a good point. ;)

With the language he uses I make it a rule not to click on his links... But if you say so I might go back and check it out.

Fiction?

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin cuts $237 million from capital budget (http://www.alaskareport.com/z46286_palin_budget.htm)

Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday axed about 10 percent of the spending that state legislators approved for hometown projects. (http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html)

Combined, about 12% from the first year and just under 10% the second year, it's substantially more than 2% unless you meant to type 12%...

Still waiting for a response.....

Using the numbers here: $237 million and a $4.3 billion final budget, we arrive at: 5.2%.

For transparency's sake: $237 million / ($4.3 billion + $237 million) (remember, $4.3 bil is the FINAL number, so the total before the cuts would've been the sum of the two figures)

Still waiting for a response.....

I totally missed that post...

But if you will refer to the last article I linked to about the latest budget, they break it down much better. (and I agree that the language they used needed clarification, it's like they missed a couple of essential sentences or something in their editing).

Link (http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html)

Long article but much further in depth and much more criticism from the legislators who had their stuff cut....

Using the numbers here: $237 million and a $4.3 billion final budget, we arrive at: 5.2%.

For transparency's sake: $237 million / ($4.3 billion + $237 million) (remember, $4.3 bil is the FINAL number, so the total before the cuts would've been the sum of the two figures)


Where are you getting 4.3 in that link, they are calling it a $1.8 billion state capital budget in the first one and a $2.7 billion state capital budget in the second one.

I totally missed that post...

But if you will refer to the last article I linked to about the latest budget, they break it down much better. (and I agree that the language they used needed clarification, it's like they missed a couple of essential sentences or something in their editing).

Link (http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html)

Long article but much further in depth and much more criticism from the legislators who had their stuff cut....

You appear to be mixing and matching numbers from (and articles referring to) the capital budget, the state operating budget, and the supplemental budget. Part of the reason for this appears to be the Palin Administration press releases deliberately conflate the three and vetoes of money for a project from one budget simply turn into funding of that project from another budget.

Hence my questions about how much Palin actual cut from each budget that stayed cut.

Where are you getting 4.3 in that link, they are calling it a $1.8 billion state capital budget in the first one and a $2.7 billion state capital budget in the second one.

I was using the number TCT provided.

I was using the number TCT provided.

Which came from this post and article by Baldy.

Cutting Pork, excess expenses go bye bye… April 3, 2008
Alaska governor Sarah Palin did just what she said she would, she took a large knife and cut the fat from the supplemental bill.http://alaskareport.com/news48/z51168_budget_palin.htm

For your perusal - the State Budget W/veto cuts slashed out for 2008…
http://alaskareport.com/pdf/SB256w_vetoes.pdf

Which came from this post and article by Baldy.

In which case we would have to add up the budget cuts from that article, not use the numbers from different budgets and different articles.

In which case we would have to add up the budget cuts from that article, not use the numbers from different budgets and different articles.

Isn't that precisely the information I asked you to provide?

You can't really blame Deus Malum for getting confused when you are playing three-card monte with the budgets.

Isn't that precisely the information I asked you to provide?

You can't really blame Deus Malum for getting confused when you are playing three-card monte with the budgets.

It would also likely have helped if I'd actually looked at any of the articles, rather than just using the numbers mentioned in the threads.

Suppose that'll teach me to try and be helpful without some proper research.

It would also likely have helped if I'd actually looked at any of the articles, rather than just using the numbers mentioned in the threads.

Suppose that'll teach me to try and be helpful without some proper research.

No worries. Baldy seems to move the goal posts a great deal of the time......

It would also likely have helped if I'd actually looked at any of the articles
Probably not, no :D

@!@#$!@#$ jolt.

I laboriously hand-typed the information from this Governor Palin press release dated May 23, 2008 (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/Budget_Press_Release_5-23-08.pdf) regarding the entire Alaska budget for FY2009, but jolt ate it.

So I'm giving the link and the following summary of the numbers:


FY2009 Operating Budget: $11.1 billion
FY2009 Mental Health Operating and Capital Budget: $189.6 million
FY2009 Capital Budget: $3.6 billion
$315 million in general obligation bonds for transportation projects.

Total vetoed from all the budget bills: $268 million


By my math that makes a total Alaska buget of just over $15.2 billion dollars.

Palin's vetoes totaled $268 million.

Someone else can do the math, but I don't think the percentage vetoed is very high.

Further budget data available here (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/index.htm).

In which case we would have to add up the budget cuts from that article, not use the numbers from different budgets and different articles.

No - the point being made is that the ARTICLES provide conflicting information: i.e. they compare 'budget' items that are actually relating to different 'budgets'.

Kind of like cutting a million dollars from the military budget (which would be insignificant), and presenting it against the budget for Bush's travel allowance.

@!@#$!@#$ jolt.

I laboriously hand-typed the information from this Governor Palin press release dated May 23, 2008 (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/Budget_Press_Release_5-23-08.pdf) regarding the entire Alaska budget for FY2009, but jolt ate it.

So I'm giving the link and the following summary of the numbers:


FY2009 Operating Budget: $11.1 billion
FY2009 Mental Health Operating and Capital Budget: $189.6 million
FY2009 Capital Budget: $3.6 billion
$315 million in general obligation bonds for transportation projects.

Total vetoed from all the budget bills: $268 million


By my math that makes a total Alaska buget of just over $15.2 billion dollars.

Palin's vetoes totaled $268 million.

Someone else can do the math, but I don't think the percentage vetoed is very high.

Further budget data available here (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/index.htm).

I make it 1.76% vetoed.

(Of course, this ignores the fact that vetoes can still be overturned - another factor not being declared).

@!@#$!@#$ jolt.

Every once in a while you and I see eye to eye :tongue: (deleted a thread I was making that pretty much is the same as yours here)

I laboriously hand-typed the information from this Governor Palin press release dated May 23, 2008 (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/Budget_Press_Release_5-23-08.pdf) regarding the entire Alaska budget for FY2009, but jolt ate it.

So I'm giving the link and the following summary of the numbers:


FY2009 Operating Budget: $11.1 billion
FY2009 Mental Health Operating and Capital Budget: $189.6 million
FY2009 Capital Budget: $3.6 billion
$315 million in general obligation bonds for transportation projects.

Total vetoed from all the budget bills: $268 million


By my math that makes a total Alaska budget of just over $15.2 billion dollars.

Palin's vetoes totaled $268 million.

Someone else can do the math, but I don't think the percentage vetoed is very high.

Further budget data available here (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/index.htm).

I didn't use your source (yours looks better anyway), and mine said the Capital budget was 2.7 not 3.6, BUT, I'm not disputing that either, it makes such a little difference I think its a wash.

The POINT though is that the cuts are deep enough that both parties and special interest groups (legitimate and nonligitimate as it may be) and a very many of the legislators are deeply disappointed about how deep the cuts are. IF you think the budget cuts are little, but then also complain that not everything cut should be cut, whats your real point? Clearly the cuts are real, capital budget getting cut by almost 10% and real people with real requests for money for their local needs are going home empty handed. Those people think the cuts are big enough to be 'real', I'm sure.

But in my mind, its that kind of 'cutting' that needs to be done on the federal level, they don't have the luxury of a line-item veto on the budget, but it's going to take that kind of determination to force congress to accept McCains cuts or face vetos... (back to the TR comparison again).

I make it 1.76% vetoed.

(Of course, this ignores the fact that vetoes can still be overturned - another factor not being declared).

Which matches the number I gave earlier, less than 2%. (Is there a smug smilie?)

No - the point being made is that the ARTICLES provide conflicting information: i.e. they compare 'budget' items that are actually relating to different 'budgets'.

Kind of like cutting a million dollars from the military budget (which would be insignificant), and presenting it against the budget for Bush's travel allowance.

I haven't seen where the articles get it wrong, we in this thread were using numbers from one article to measure the different budget in a different article.

10% of the capital budget is 10% of the captial budget. 1% of the Operations Budget is a different cut and different budget.

Adding ALL the money in the state together into one big pile is still going to be guesswork.


Sidepoint: And you guys tried to say it was so easy to be the governor of a stupid little state like Alaska ...

Which matches the number I gave earlier, less than 2%. (Is there a smug smilie?)

Concedes your smug smiley (suspects it was lucky anyhow :p)

Which matches the number I gave earlier, less than 2%. (Is there a smug smilie?)

Not really. I also checked to see if there was a "devil" smiley, so as to make a lawyer joke, but alas, none exists.

I haven't seen where the articles get it wrong, we in this thread were using numbers from one article to measure the different budget in a different article.

10% of the capital budget is 10% of the captial budget. 1% of the Operations Budget is a different cut and different budget.

But that openly (if not deliberately) ignores the fact that the articles you cited to explained that items vetoed in one budget were later allowed in another budget. The only way to get a real picture is to look at all the budget bills together. That is what I finally did.

Adding ALL the money in the state together into one big pile is still going to be guesswork.

Not really, as I found a press release from the Palin Administration that stated the amount of each part of FY2009 budget and said "In all, $268 million was vetoed from the budget bills."

That seems pretty frickin' clear.

By my math that makes a total Alaska buget of just over $15.2 billion dollars.

Palin's vetoes totaled $268 million.

Someone else can do the math, but I don't think the percentage vetoed is very high.

Just shy of 2%

Not really. I also checked to see if there was a "devil" smiley, so as to make a lawyer joke, but alas, none exists.

http://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_devil.gif

From one of the earlier links about the Alaskan budget:
On Friday, Gov. Palin signed an $11 billion operating budget and a $2.7 billion capital budget for fiscal year 2009, which starts July 1. She vetoed $2.6 million from the operating budget but rejected $265 million in projects from the capital budget.
So saying 10% is a slight misnomer. It's 10% of the operating budget, but comes to just under 2% of the total budget.
As to what she vetoed?
Here's some of the, ahem, 'better' ones:
Ship Creek Salmon Learning Center -- $3.5 million
Fire Island Windmill farm -- $25 million (vetoed, but the money kept for other projects, so technically not really a saving)
Mat-Su recycling center -- $1 million
Anchorage Covenant House expansion -- $1.1 million (Covenant House is a centre for the homeless and runaway youths)
Kenai Peninsula junk vehicle removal -- $400,000
Anchorage Dolly Parton Imagination Library -- $90,000
and 'many small grants to schools and nonprofits' - this includes cutting the budget for school libraries and computers, stating they can get the money for this 'elsewhere'.
Oh, and this veto is very interesting:
KTOO FM & TV "Government Transparency Project" -- $100,000

So we can see that Palin doesn't particularly care for: Government transparency, Learning, Recycling, the Homeless or Sustainable energy.

What we can expect from a Palin administration then.

Also of interest was something she didn't veto: $2 million for an "academic based" conference to highlight arguments that global warming isn't threatening the survival of polar bears.

http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html

....
So we can see that Palin doesn't particularly care for: Government transparency, ...

Oh the irony. You do realize that IF Sarah wasn't for Transparency in Government WE wouldn't be ABLE to make these assessments! Palin is the first Governor of Alaska to put her budgets online.


EDIT: until the election is over, I shall have a new Avatar... I'm not in many religious threads around here until then I think. My collective persona was revealed in those many Alaska news source searches... :tongue:

riiight. Because Government Transparency begins and ends with putting the budget online.
That's all it takes to appease you, does it?

good of you to focus on just two words I wrote and ignore the other 252.

Sidepoint: And you guys tried to say it was so easy to be the governor of a stupid little state like Alaska ...

I didn't say that. I may have suggested that her being the big pig in that particular mudpuddle shouldn't be considered too much by way of experience, considering I've lived in a couple of cities that had higher populations than her entire state.

Although - thinking about it... what exactly about shifting numbers from one budget allocation to another is it that you think would make it NOT 'so easy'? If that's the hardest thing she's got to do, her job is a piece of piss.

EDIT: and - thinking about it, I doubt she does the number work herself...

Sarah Palin: The Fiscal Conservative:
69 percent increase in Debt Service
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government debt service was $658,662.
In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—the debt service was $390,385.
The increase was 69 percent.
[Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1]

$19 million in long-term debt
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt was $18,635,000.
In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt.
[Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]

Long term debt of $3k per capita
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt per capita was $2,938.
In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt.
[Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]

6% of government spending on debt service
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the ratio of debt service to general government expenditures was 6.24 percent.
There was no long-term debt before she took office.
[Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 11]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/a-fiscal-conser.html

Sarah Palin: The Fiscal Conservative:
69 percent increase in Debt Service
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government debt service was $658,662. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—the debt service was $390,385.
The increase was 69 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1]

$19 million in long-term debt
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt was $18,635,000. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]

Long term debt of $3k per capita
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt per capita was $2,938. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]

6% of government spending on debt service
In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the ratio of debt service to general government expenditures was 6.24 percent. There was no long-term debt before she took office. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 11]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/a-fiscal-conser.html


Reality is sexist.

riiight. Because Government Transparency begins and ends with putting the budget online.
That's all it takes to appease you, does it?

good of you to focus on just two words I wrote and ignore the other 252.

ZP, you should just admit that Balderdash has utterly defeated your arguments.

OF COURSE transparency solely requires disclosure of basic financial documents.

That's why SEC mandated reporting requirements for C Corporations have prevented any and all malfeasance and mismanagement in any US publicly held corporation since 1933.

Nevada once tried to put our budget online, but Sam Giancana's clone hasn't learned PERL yet.

ZP, you should just admit that Balderdash has utterly defeated your arguments.

OF COURSE transparency solely requires disclosure of basic financial documents.

That's why SEC mandated reporting requirements for C Corporations have prevented any and all malfeasance and mismanagement in any US publicly held corporation since 1933.

Nevada once tried to put our budget online, but Sam Giancana's clone hasn't learned PERL yet.

I love you. And Im still sure your jhann (I dont know if that was ever confermed).

I love you. And Im still sure your jhann (I dont know if that was ever confermed).

The person you reference sounds muslim. I am a white christian.

Anyway, Palin needs respect, or she will have her husband ride a dog sled to your house and gut you like a moose.

Seriously, though, somebody needs to get Ann Coulter a job on the Rhode Island Sanitation Board or something, so she'll be qualified in four years to fix all this.

Sidepoint: And you guys tried to say it was so easy to be the governor of a stupid little state like Alaska ...

Hmmm? Population wouldn't even fill St. Paul.

Seriously, though, somebody needs to get Ann Coulter a job on the Rhode Island Sanitation Board or something, so she'll be qualified in four years to fix all this.

Speaking of the great she witch; where is she these days? Did the repubs gag her and toss her in a room?

Speaking of the great she witch; where is she these days? Did the repubs gag her and toss her in a room?

I killed her.

Sidepoint: And you guys tried to say it was so easy to be the governor of a stupid little state like Alaska ...
Hmmm? Population wouldn't even fill St. Paul.

i've seen the equivalent of the entire population of alaska show up to a protest and fit into grant park in chicago

This thread title always makes me chuckle. Palin isn't the new Obama, she's the new Cheney. :)

This thread title always makes me chuckle. Palin isn't the new Obama, she's the new Cheney. :)

Nahhh. Much as I detest the man, he rarely says things like "Thanks but no thanks...." I opposed the bridge.....

An interesting site given to me by an Alaskan woman who detests St. Palin.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/politics_first_truth_second

This thread title always makes me chuckle. Palin isn't the new Obama, she's the new Cheney. :)

You laugh. Give her 15 years. She very well could be. She's starting as W in a skirt.

End the sexism against Sarah Palin!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campbell.brown.palin/index.html

Funniest response to the editorial (inside the article, not in the comments section): Campbell's "rant" was just ridiculous. The media including CNN have themselves to blame for Palin being protected. None of the extreme, harsh rumors, etc., have been said about any of the other candidates.
Wut?

@!@#$!@#$ jolt.

I laboriously hand-typed the information from this Governor Palin press release dated May 23, 2008 (http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/Budget_Press_Release_5-23-08.pdf) regarding the entire Alaska budget for FY2009, but jolt ate it.

Do what I do (though I admit I don't type up large amounts of text on NSG): Type out in here, then make a copy in a text document (in case jolt does something funky).

Oh the irony. You do realize that IF Sarah wasn't for Transparency in Government WE wouldn't be ABLE to make these assessments! Palin is the first Governor of Alaska to put her budgets online.Because putting a budget online is the only thing one has to do to become transparent...

Speaking of the great she witch; where is she these days? Did the repubs gag her and toss her in a room?

She's still around. Put out a thing today about how the whole financial crisis is because of lazy minorities and poor people getting mortgages.

This thread title always makes me chuckle. Palin isn't the new Obama, she's the new Cheney. :)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1949/palicheneydl5.gif
It's uncanny, isn't it?

(This image shamelessly stolen from someone on Somethink Awful dot com)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1949/palicheneydl5.gif
It's uncanny, isn't it?

(This image shamelessly stolen from someone on Somethink Awful dot com)

You know, I haven't seen Cheney and ICBINH together in a single shot. What if Cheney's really The Thing (the one you take a flamethrower to instead of thanking for saving your ass) and "Sarah Palin" is just a fictional identity invented for him to continue holding on to the VP position long after Dear Leader finally gets out of office?

You know, I haven't seen Cheney and ICBINH together in a single shot. What if Cheney's really The Thing (the one you take a flamethrower to instead of thanking for saving your ass) and "Sarah Palin" is just a fictional identity invented for him to continue holding on to the VP position long after Dear Leader finally gets out of office?I've heard it meantioned that Cheney is a sith lord, and sith always come in twos. Good that we finally get to meet his apprentice.

I've heard it meantioned that Cheney is a sith lord, and sith always come in twos. Good that we finally get to meet his apprentice.
That implies she could usurp him. She's more like the apprentice of a sith apprentice.

Oh the irony. You do realize that IF Sarah wasn't for Transparency in Government WE wouldn't be ABLE to make these assessments! Palin is the first Governor of Alaska to put her budgets online.


EDIT: until the election is over, I shall have a new Avatar... I'm not in many religious threads around here until then I think. My collective persona was revealed in those many Alaska news source searches... :tongue:
Others have already pointed out that that's not all it takes to maintain government transparency, but you're right about this much: If she had thought to hide these numbers we might have a little more trouble making these assessments, because it would not be quite so obvious just how dishonest she is. Thank goodness she is just as incompetent as she is crooked.

Others have already pointed out that that's not all it takes to maintain government transparency, but you're right about this much: If she had thought to hide these numbers we might have a little more trouble making these assessments, because it would not be quite so obvious just how dishonest she is. Thank goodness she is just as incompetent as she is crooked.

Gotta love people who broadcast their incompetence to the world, eh?

And you owe me a TG!

Gotta love people who broadcast their incompetence to the world, eh?

And you owe me a TG!
Yes, massa! Readin' the TG, Boss!! :D

You laugh. Give her 15 years. She very well could be. She's starting as W in a skirt.

I don't have to give her 15 years. She's evading subpoenas already.

I don't have to give her 15 years. She's evading subpoenas already.

It's like that's a class they teach the minute you register with the GOP as a candidate.

Just f*cking pathetic, eh?