Posted on 08/05/2011 4:46:03 PM PDT by Anamnesis
Candidate
|
Beginning
Debt Outstanding
|
Ending
Debt Outstanding
|
Cumulative
Increase/Decrease
|
Average Annual Increase/Decrease
|
Palin
FY07 – FY10
|
$2.246 Billion
|
$2.531 Billion
|
12.7%
|
4.2%
|
Huntsman
FY05 – FY10 |
$3.475 Billion
|
$4.204 Billion
|
21.0%
|
4.2%
|
Pawlenty
FY03 – FY10
|
$3.474 Billion
|
$5.768 Billion
|
66.0%
|
9.4%
|
Romney
FY03 – FY07
|
$15.963 Billion
|
$23.026 Billion
|
44.3%
|
11.1%
|
Perry
FY01 – FY10
|
$12.561 Billion
|
$35.692 Billion
|
184.2%
|
20.5%
|
Candidate
|
Beginning
Debt Outstanding
Per Capita
|
Ending
Debt Outstanding Per Capita
|
Cumulative
Increase/Decrease
|
Average Annual Increase/Decrease
|
Huntsman
FY05 – FY10 |
$1,391
|
$1,485
|
6.8%
|
1.4%
|
Palin
FY07 – FY10
|
$3,326
|
$3,571
|
7.4%
|
2.5%
|
Pawlenty
FY03 – FY10
|
$688
|
$1,090
|
58.5%
|
8.4%
|
Romney
FY03 – FY07
|
$2,473
|
$3,543
|
43.3%
|
10.8%
|
Perry
FY01 – FY10
|
$589
|
$1,416
|
140.4%
|
15.6%
|
Candidate
|
Beginning
Total Liabilities
|
Ending
Total Liabilities
|
Cumulative
Increase/Decrease
|
Average Annual Increase/Decrease
|
Palin
FY07 – FY10
|
$9.847 Billion
|
$6.436 Billion
|
-34.6%
|
-11.5%
|
Romney
FY03 – FY07
|
$37.679 Billion
|
$45.030 Billion
|
19.5%
|
4.9%
|
Pawlenty
FY03 – FY10
|
$10.188 Billion
|
$14.366 Billion
|
40.7%
|
5.8%
|
Perry
FY01 – FY10
|
$48.125 Billion
|
$77.271 Billion
|
60.6%
|
6.7%
|
Huntsman
FY05 – FY10 |
$4.501 Billion
|
$6.351 Billion
|
41.4%
|
8.2%
|
Candidate
|
Beginning
Total Liabilities
Per Capita
|
Ending
Total Liabilities
Per Capita
|
Cumulative
Increase/Decrease
|
Average Annual Increase/Decrease
|
Palin
FY07 – FY10
|
$14,581
|
$9,079
|
-37.7%
|
-12.6%
|
Perry
FY01 – FY10
|
$2,256
|
$3,065
|
35.8%
|
4.0%
|
Romney
FY03 – FY07
|
$5,837
|
$6,928
|
18.7%
|
4.7%
|
Huntsman
FY05 – FY10 |
$1,801
|
$2,244
|
24.5%
|
4.9%
|
Pawlenty
FY03 – FY10
|
$2,017
|
$2,710
|
34.3%
|
4.9%
|
The comparisons are not apples to oranges. I calculated the numbers on a per capita basis (to correct for population size) and on an average annual basis (to correct for length of time in office). Palin still comes out on top. And Perry lands at the bottom of the heap. Try again, and try harder.
Even though she was in office from December 2006 through July 2009, Palin’s governorship covers fiscal years 2008 (July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008) through 2010 (July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010), because those are the years covered by the budgets over which she presided.
Apparently a distinction which is lost on you. Don't feel bad, though. Imagine how truly boring this life would be if everyone were average intelligence or above.
;^D
To be critical of flawed reasons given for supporting a candidate doesn't mean one opposes that candidate. You're both jumping off the deep end into the "Pitchfork Pat" true believers schtick that infected FR when Buchanan ran for President. Someone would post a bogus straw poll that showed Buchanan winning the presidency and anyone critical of the poll's results was branded a Buchanan-hater, RINO, etc. Same cr@p done by Ron Paul's supporters every time he runs.
As noted in #13, there's a good chance I'll vote for Palin in the primaries if she runs.
But getting attacked by "purists" for pointing out flaws in arguments on her behalf does nothing to encourage such a vote. Frankly, it reminds me of the whackos who vote to re-elect Dennis Kucinich to Congress not because ideology but because they share his beliefs in UFOs. A decade holding a weak governorship of a large state doesn't give the governor credit for the economy in that state. Similarly, a partial term as a strong governor in a state with a population the size of Austin doesn't provide sufficient reason to claim she's Reagan reincarnated either. Palin and Perry are the best the GOP has to offer if they run...but understand that both are more populist than conservative. Either will disappoint conservatives at times as President because of that populist streak. But each is superior to the Marxist currently occupying the Oval Office.
You can vote for the "right" candidate for the wrong reasons...just don't insist everyone else has to as well. The chart is fundamentally flawed for the reasons pointed out.
She's already your girlfriend...
LOL, a right on ZINGER!
I never said it did. Nor did I ever accuse you of being "anti-Palin." I commented only, and quite pointedly, upon your misinterpretation of the empirical Palin data and how it juxtaposes to Perry's.
"You're both jumping off the deep end..."
Ahem... from whence it came, Cyrano.
%)
>>>>I get frustrated with folks from outside Alaska who come up and say you shouldnt develop your resources, she says. Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on federal dollars, as the state does today.
more http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp?page=2
Palin didnt want Fed. dollars - she wanted Alaska to be allowed to drill baby, drill!!>>>>
“Alaska is a welfare state, receiving almost twice as much money from the feds as it pays. So, tell us, in which year of her self-abbreviated tenure did she reject the welfare from the feds.”
Did you REALLY expect Palin to change the Feds’ actions as governor? As POTUS, she can, and so can Bachmann, Santorum and Cain. As gov., Palin was at the mercy of the feds. to some extent. The feds won’t allow Alaska to drill.
TX is allowed to drill more than Alaska, but if Perry were gov. of Alaska, he would not have done as well as Palin, including the fact that Palin got rid of corruption in her own party.
Do you actually think Perry would have done as well with Alaska, as Palin did, given the same set of circumstances that Palin had?
Palin is more of a constitutional conservative, and would not want to be a nanny-state leader, as Perry was with his mandated vaccines for girls, as young as nine years of age.
btw, how is Perry doing with securing Texas borders? Or is he more like Bush in that area?
“The Feds should be paying Alaska rent on all the land they control.”
Well said!!!!
We need a POTUS as tough as Palin (and a few others) so we can use the natural resources that our Creator has blessed us with.
The feds wont allow Alaska to drill.
Possibly but are they stopping AK from drilling on the state owned lands. I can understand the Feds controlling drilling in the almost 70% of the land in AK that they own/control.
I can see how that works out to three years of budgets; I guess it’s just that “2007-2010” sounds like 4 calendar years; in fiscal years, it should say “2007-2009”.
Virginia is interesting because we have 2-year budgets, so our off-year legislative sessions are “short” sessions, and just tweak the budgets rather than writing new ones.
“and you’re a joke”
Tsk, tsk. So you can’t respond to my comment so you name call.
FYI
“The Liberals need hatred and lies to justify their disliking Palin. Other than a purely irrational vitriol with which they parrot lies and distortions about her (which often go unchallenged just because they are so forcefully expressed), they would not be able to point to any one substantive reason for disliking her.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2742043/posts?page=31#31s
None of what you posted changes the fact that Alaska is a welfare state getting almost twice as much from the fed as it puts in.
Just don’t blame Palin. Blame the Federal Govt..
We need a president in the White House to change things, and allow as much drilling as we need, in Alaska, and throughout the country. You’ll see more jobs, less govt. hand outs, as well as lower gasoline and heating oil prices.
What we need in the White House is a president, who fights like a girl, and that would be Palin or Bachmann.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.