Comments by common_sense
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 16 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Crab, (nice fitting moniker), if you tired of paying for other people's children and like Alaska the way it used to be before all the people why are you still in a borough. Move out in the middle of nowhere. I think we'll all be better off.
Posted on July 16 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am very amazed at how many people are getting so upset over children. I think this shows the purest form of selfishness there is. I guess it's because my kids are taking thier money.
I guess I'll just have to appologize for your taxes paying for my children's education. Remember that the next time my taxes re-pave your road or puts out a fire at your house.
I guess what I'm saying is, stop complaining that someone with more kids than you gets more money than you. They do deserve it. Without future generations there wil be no Alaska!
BTW, thanks Dana. I'm glad to see someone can open thier mind beyond thier wallet.
Posted on July 14 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just like to clear up a couple things.
First: My previous comment was to enlighten some on the fact that it Does matter how many people live in a house when it comes to being able to afford to heat it.
Second: This has nothing to do whith "Relying on handouts" or thinking I "Deserve" more than anyone else. I even stated the proposal is not 100% fair. I don't budget my families needs on what the state give out. We live on what we earn.
So, yes, I chose to have a large family, and that is a blessing I have cherrished far more than anything this State could, or has, given me.
Posted on July 13 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Second, the cost of heating a home is not affected by the number of people living in the home yet a household of 5 will receive $6,000 through this program while a household with the same heating costs inhabited by 2 people will receive only $2,400."
This statement is not totally accurate.
A family of 5 needs a larger home than a family of 2, therefore requiring more energy to heat. Raising a larger family takes much more financial needs than a family of two. All utilities, food, larger vehicle (more gas), etc. multiply costs to survive dramatically.
I have a large family (6 of us) and these costs also affect us in the way of doing this primarily on my income. My wife works part time ,around my schedule, because we can't afford day care due to the energy costs.
I'm not saying this program is 100% fair to everyone, but it's not as unfair as you presume.
Posted on July 12 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The money made on oil by the State is for the State. The State is made up of residents, without whom, there would be no State.
When the gov. needs money for budget shortfalls they have no problem increasing my property taxes and/or the assesed value of my property. They do not hesitate to increase any kind of taxes in place, i.e. bed tax, sin tax, city tax, etc.
Therefore I do not consider this a handout. If the State needs money they get it from us, so if they're making money why shouldn't it come back?
On Help us out
Posted on June 20 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
st,
I understand you view on heating a house no matter how many people are in it, but please try to understand it takes a larger house to hold more people, and thier are more mouths to feed, more water to heat for showers, more laundry, etc., which takes away money for the fuel tank.
I'm not trying to put you down, I just want to give a little more understanding.
On Alaskans would get $1,200 each to offset energy costs under Palin's plan
Posted on June 12 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Tim,
My dishwashers busted and I can't afford a new one until my fuel tank is full. Let me know if your labs have puppies.
Posted on June 11 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will agree it would be nice to have another snack bar outside security, but if there is only going to be one it needs to be where it's at.
I can only imagine how much complaining there would be if everyone had to leave security to get a snack and try to get back in and catch thier flight on time.
Posted on May 22 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would be a full supporter of a drug test for any benefit from the state or federal govt.
I do feel that if we get back only what we pay for UI then it's ours to use how we wish, but if any state or fed money is used to supplement, then prove your worthy by taking the test.
If anyone is concerned on funding, figure out what one person on welfare, UI, etc., recieves every year. If one person fails the test, the amount what they would have recieved would fund many other tests. I feel the amount of people that would fail could fund the testing program forever, and help supplement the aid legitimate clients would get.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on August 20 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm really curious as to how many of you "Big Oil" bashers are buisness owners. From what I've read and heard, the refinery has a problem with the unit that makes gasoline so there is a supply shortage forcing the gas to be brought in from elsewhere. How is the refinery making big profit off this? It's not thier product.
If you, (and you may), own your own buisness making a product and can't produce it the same way at the same cost, do you not adjust the price accordingly? Do you sell your product at cost? No. You make a profit, the same thing every other buisness owner in this country tries to do.
Don't start bashing back at me for defending the refinery because that's not the intent here. My intent is to bring to light how one sided and blind most of these comments are. Please stop to think, resarch some facts, ask some questions before, laying blame and ridicule on someone that might not deserve all of it. Let's try putting the brakes on the bandwagon and finding out some truth.
On Slowdown at North Pole refinery leaves tanks dry in Interior Alaska