To: Skeez
In a sane and constitutional world, states would not send money to the Federal government for redistribution. A state would build its own infrastructure etc. using its own funds.
To: Lion Den Dan
Maybe if 98% of the land mass in Alaska wasn't controlled by the feds; possibly could work out that way. It didn't start that way, but sure ended up that way thanks to various Presidents & Federal designations that have locked up the state from any development.
Much more value in our resources than pennies from the feds.
7 posted on
12/01/2010 5:31:09 AM PST by
Eska
To: Lion Den Dan
So this is what the American experiment has come to... taking people's money and giving it to the most talented money grubbers, state senators...
13 posted on
12/01/2010 6:09:22 AM PST by
dps.inspect
(the system is rigged...)
To: Lion Den Dan
Alaskans pay no state income tax or sales tax, and in fact the state usually sends out checks to residents, depending on how long they’ve resided in the state, as I understand it. If Alaska has “enormous infrastructure needs” as Murk claims, then it can damn well pay for them itself.
14 posted on
12/01/2010 6:15:05 AM PST by
Spartan79
(Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.)
To: Lion Den Dan
In a sane and constitutional world, states would not send money to the Federal government for redistribution. A state would build its own infrastructure etc. using its own funds. Guards! GUARDS! Arrest that man! He is speaking treason against the Royal Federal Oligarchy!
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
20 posted on
12/01/2010 7:32:25 AM PST by
The Comedian
(Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson