Slashdot Mirror
FBI, IRS Raid Home of Sen. Ted Stevens
A while back we discussed the corruption investigation aimed at Alaska Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens. A number of readers sent us word that the home of Sen. Stevens was raided earlier today by agents of the FBI and the IRS. The focus of the raid was a remodeling project at Stevens's home and the involvement of VECO, an oil company.
The government PAYS people that live in Alaksa to live there.
Seriously ?
Seriously.
The money collected from other sources (notably north slope oil pumping and transport) are far more than the state government needs for its own function.
Rather than finding new ways to waste it, the more-than-slightly libertarian-leaning politicians decided to do away with other taxes - notably income and property tax.
But they still had a big surplus. So they decided to distribute it to the citizens. Even a libertarian can support this as a move in the right direction, since most of the money comes from selling off a resource "owned in common by the citizens of the state". If the government sells it, the citizen-owners should each get their share of the proceeds, right?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
He was screwing up more than just the jargon. He was screwing up the entire explanation of how the internet works. At any rate, that little rant of his is just what made him funny. That doesn't change the fact that, in spite of having now idea what he was talking about, he was the one spearheading legislation capitualiting to big telecoms on getting rid of net neutrality. I think that's what has most slashdotters angry at him, and given the audience it's pretty expected and reasonable.
As a career choice. People who want to be in politics are probably the last people you want in charge. I say we double the pay for every single elected position in the country, halve the term periods, and appoint people (meeting certain criteria, 25 years old, HS diploma, US citizen) to every single position based on a lottery system at whatever level (local, state, federal) the position is for. Power corrupts, absolutely, and those seeking power are probably already corrupt. Things would be a lot more effective if average people whose friends and neighbors have a vested interest in whats going on were in power. And with shorter term limits, even if someone terrible got appointed, they wouldnt be there for long enough to do all the much damage. Not to mention they would probably focus more on the job at hand. How much time do politicos spend on their re-election campaigns vs actual work?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
even though it would only cause them to go about 30 miles to circumnavigate the island
I wonder what the long-term expenses of that would be. Maybe making the bridge is ultimately cheaper than paying for all that gasoline, thus ultimately benefiting the economy?
You'd need some actual figures to determine that.
So logically they should receive something near to what they paid to the Highway Trust Fund, right? Alaska receives $4.06 for every dollar paid. That is $3.06 too much.
What do most places do when they want to build bridges? They raise taxes and impose tolls. It might be hard for Alaskans to believe that sometimes you have to pay money to your government rather than getting handouts for public services, but it is the truth. And once they realize this, they will be much more careful with the funds. A $315 million bridge will look a lot less sensible when the federal contribution drops from $223 million to $55 million.
I'm glad you are so well informed to have researched his past, his record, his writings, his speeches...oh wait...you just made a decision based on a media appearance... He is also one of the few politicians that has a solid record of voting based on the constitution rather than all the other nonsense. This is EXACTLY the mindset that got us stuck in this situation...stupid kneejerk reactions to media appearances. Certainly by your logic everything the current administration has done is the best possible path because the offending members of the administration make regular appearances on 'legitimate' media outlets... We are under attack by Islamofascists who hate our freedoms because President "you gotta catapult the propoganda" Bush said so on all the major outlets right?
Are you honestly going to try to tell me that The Alex Jones show is any worse than Fox News about going overboard and making sensationalist shit up? Incidentally, not that I agree with much of Jones' ideas...look up The Big Lie. Telling a lie so implausibly huge that it could not be anything but the truth... Welcome to modern American government. Go research the people in office, where they have been, the positions they held. Robert Gates our current SecDef was also head of the CIA during the Iran Contra business, Donald Rumsfeld swore to have the ban on aspertame lifted while he was Chairman of G.D Searle (the makers of) sure enough reapplied the day after Reagan entered office, and eventually was approved by a Reagan appointee who then quit under allegations of impropriety. Dick Cheney SecDef during Gulf War I, Bush Sr CIA Director, the list goes on and on and on and these are only the well known household names. If you actually bothered to read the history of these things it has been a select cast of a few in key positions of power in our government for the past 20+ years. We elect new figureheads yet all of these people just shift around appointed to new positions and park in some of the most criminal corporations in between. Monsanto, G.D. Searle, Halliburton, again the list goes on. None of this is conspiracy theory...it is clearly written and documented history that people are too god damned lazy to bother looking up. So grab your flag, sing your song, and bomb the infade...err...bomb the terrorist...sorry the justifications are so similar I get them confused sometimes.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I'm not arguing about the sodomy, but I know a guy who's a cook at a maximum-security (state, not Federal) prison, and the food they serve isn't half bad. It's definitely better than what gets served in many schools.
Unless you're talking about situations where someone's food is repeatedly being stolen by other prisoners or something, nobody's starving.
But yeah, they're probably being ass-raped and beaten, so being well-fed is probably small comfort.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The stock market exploded with reagonomics and interest rates plummeted and inflation was finally under control.
More money for the wealthy means lower interest rates so businesses can hire more and expand as loans become cheap. It also helps joe sixpack refinance his home which goes up in value as more can afford. Infact the housing hike that hit so much of the nation was because of Clinton's low interest rate policy borrowed from republicans.
What happened in the 1920's was the result of unregulated loans for stocks where you could buy a stock with only a a fraction of the up front cost. Great way to gain alot of wealth fast but once they go down then your pretty much screwed. That is illegal today.
What happened in the late 1980's was related to computer problems and the banks not having enough money for some bad savings and loan scams. Again more reagonomics can fix this as more banks have money but competing agaisnt hte government for money is bad as the banks favor the government. Right now they have alot more in capital so a repeat is not close to what happened in the late 80's. IT had nothing to do with reagonmics.
The more money people have the more jobs are created and the fact that after 9-11 we had not had a serious recession confirms that giving businesses low interest rate loans and wealth insurances more jobs.
http://saveie6.com/
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Let's see some figures to back that up, please. Every article I've read on the subject seem to think that the US federal government spends more per capita on health care than any other. That's the government, not the poor saps who can find themselves bankrupt from hospital bills because they were unlucky enough to get sick.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I should be permitted to give money to only those candidates I am allowed to vote for.
Unfortunately campaign contributions are only part of the problem. Restricting contributions does nothing to reduce expenditures, which can be made by anyone. So instead of contributing directly to Sen. Stevens campaign, EvilCorp can simply spend its own money running advertisements, perhaps as part of a group such as "Concerned Evil Corporations For America".
Moneyed interests will always be able to get around campaign finance laws. The only way to combat the influence of money is to not play into their game -- stop running expensive TV campaigns, and go back to grassroots organizing. Walking precincts, small get-togethers, political rallies -- the foundations of true democracy. Campaigns (and the major political parties) have become professionalized to a ridiculous extent. It's time to make them amateur again, in the best sense of that word.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
...does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 A middle income family needs to buy 1.5 acres for their home? In a major population centre? For what? No wonder there is no room left in the city. The traditional Aussie 1/4 acre suburban lot has proven to be more than enough for most families, which would bring the cost down to (roughly) $125k, and that's not an outrageous amount.The second paragraph under the chart: If you look at the debt starting with Truman's term (and remove Roosevelt's WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.1% per year. Over the last 57 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by more than a two to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 57 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.47. The page has references for more information.
We should be fair to the earlier Republican presidents since about 2/3rds (about $6 trillion) of the existing $8.9 trillion debt was incurred under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It looks like Eisenhower, in particular, was an example of a real fiscally conservative Republican.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Why shouldn't Alaskan money go to Alaska, and Hawaiian money go to Hawaii? Why send it through more bureaucracy? From what I understand, Alaska doesn't even collect state income taxes. Maybe they don't need to, since the federal government pays for all their stuff?
And I'm from New Jersey. For every $1 we send to the government, we get about $0.63 back. We get the least back from the federal government of all the states. Alaska is on the other end of the scale, getting back about $1.80 for each dollar they send to the federal government (they are #2, right behind New Mexico's $1.91 return on their dollar). So, on the whole money is flowing from my state, to Alaska.
Hawaii isn't quite as bad as NM or Alaska, but they are #7, getting back $1.54 for each dollar they send to the feds.
Here's my source: http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm
You could calculate it in a bunch of different ways, but the numbers are so far apart that I doubt you could massage them into saying that I'm not getting the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funds.
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams