For every dollar your state sends to DC, here's how much u get back in spending! (cost, dollars)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Posting this sort of oversimplified information in a "politics" message forum is ALWAYS a TROLL activity.

The feds spend money on the Securities & Exchange Commission mostly in New York state and in Washington, D.C., but I as an investor in publicly-held securities am a beneficiary of that spending. So, for some, EVEN MANY, federal programs, the LOCATION OF DISBURSEMENT versus the LOCATIONS OF BENEFICIARIES don't have any correlation! You need to use your gray matter!

Give it a rest!

Sorry,
but if Im putting money into something, I have every right to pontificate and spew as much as I want until my face turns purple.

Its my perogative as a taxpayer and I wont be stifled.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Sorry,
but if Im putting money into something, I have every right to pontificate and spew as much as I want until my face turns purple.

Its my perogative as a taxpayer and I wont be stifled.

So you're telling me that you can't discriminate between the locations where the Feds spend their money and the mechanisms through which you as a citizen receive the benefits of federal government services? I would say you're not thinking hard enough!

television broadcasting
radio broadcasting
highways and freeways (funding, standards, safety)
cell phones (radio spectrum regulations)
stock market, bonds market, commodities market
social security
dept of commerce, treasury (banking, S&Ls, FDIC, FSLIC)
federal housing authority (mortgages, standards)
small business administration
dept of transportation (bridges, standards, safety, trucking regulations, etc.)
dept of health, dept of agriculture (food safety, farming industries)

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

So you're telling me that you can't discriminate between the locations where the Feds spend their money and the mechanisms through which you as a citizen receive the benefits of federal government services? I would say you're not thinking hard enough!

Well, generally, federal money going ANYWHERE benefits the economy as a whole.

What sort of economy would DC have if not for federal presence? "Military towns" that wither and die when the base moves away? Federal prisons creating the ONLY jobs in an entire town? Defense businesses?


I just wish people would understand how much of our economy is propped up by Federal dollars, not just in welfare and social services, but in the services the government itself uses.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

I would say you're not thinking hard enough!

Perhaps,
but at the same time, California is shortchanged by what? 50 BILLION DOLLARS!?!

Tell me again why I need you?

[CarolinaBredChicagoan]

Why who needs who?

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan

I'm in agreement about the salt grains. Still, I find it funny that of the 'donor states', 12 out of 17 listed are "blue states". Conversely, of the 15 states that receive the most aid (not counting DC), 13 are "Red".

So the states that vote, ostensibly, for the party of small gov't get more money per capita than the social programs guys. Interesting.

Again, rural states have small populations and lower costs of living so federal monies stand out higher. California could take over all the ICBM silo's in the Dakota's if that would make you feel better? Put them in the vineyards of Sonoma wine country!

Another dynamic is that every state has 2 senators so they can wield their vote for pork.

Lastly, you assume that the red states get too much aid? Um, couldn't another interpretation be that the blue states pay too much tax? Seriously, think about that one for a little while. (The AMTI certainly does impact some of the high cost of living states more than others)

[ontheroad]

18Montclair, you are in the Politics and other Controversies forum. You may not need anyone, but we all will offer to help you. or .... hinder!

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Perhaps,
but at the same time, California is shortchanged by what? 50 BILLION DOLLARS!?!

Tell me again why I need you?

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Lastly, you assume that the red states get too much aid? Um, couldn't another interpretation be that the blue states pay too much tax? Seriously, think about that one for a little while.

That's interesting. What about the hypothesis that the economies of the blue states (that is, middle America--do I have this backwards?) are relatively small so they de facto don't deserve any heavier "fertilization" with federal monies? The argument thus is that the governors of the blue states should do more to grow the economies of those states. How has North Carolina turned itself around? How did resource-poor Florida become an economic workhorse? How has infrastructure-poor Nevada (Las Vegas) become an economic engine?

A good number of the blue states have been "passed by" economically by a good number of the red states, so of course the latter should be getting more economic and infrastructure attention from the feds.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

That's interesting. What about the hypothesis that the economies of the blue states (that is, middle America--do I have this backwards?) are relatively small so they de facto don't deserve any heavier "fertilization" with federal monies? The argument thus is that the governors of the blue states should do more to grow the economies of those states. How has North Carolina turned itself around? How did resource-poor Florida become an economic workhorse? How has infrastructure-poor Nevada (Las Vegas) become an economic engine?

A good number of the blue states have been "passed by" economically by a good number of the red states, so of course the latter should be getting more economic and infrastructure attention from the feds.

Hard to say, I still think it's more of an Urban\Rural thing and that happens to CURRENTLY coincide with political voting but is generally just BS in my view.

I also think its funny that the largest recipients of rural federal spending would be farmers....the same people that much of the "blue" was VERY interested in handing tax dollars to. (See Farm Aid and how the evil, more efficient, corporate farms were driving the little guys out of business.) So, our congress and Senate gave them lots of handouts and also tax people with higher incomes and now people in states with less agricultural and higher wages see an imbalance? Ironic indeed that this would happen and it would then be cast as solely "red" hypocrisy.

[tinman01]

Actually the list makes a valid point of how out of of control the fed really is.
The fed is paying for parks, hiking trails and much more in individual states. On paper it seems generous. In reality these projects due to gov over billing are a waste. Not the idea of the parks but the execution of the ideas.
If smallville wants a walking trail thats fine. But why should the good people of Ohio pay for it? Does this trail benifit them? No.
Instead the community that wishes to have the trail should raise money on their own to include taxes. If communities had to pay for their own pork imagine how much lower fed taxes could be. Imagine how much less waste would happen if it were managed at the local level. That is of course you can trust your local gov.
In my area: An inflateable damn project was proposed. It would be in the susquehanna river. Down stream from some very polluted waters. In the proposal they showed pictures of people swiming sailboating etc. No one would ever swim in this part of the river. Just the feasability study alone was staggering in terms of cost. This my friends is called waste. The function of the dam? Allegedly to help reduce risk of flooding. Reality? It would serve no such purpose. Our friendly congrassman and his family and friends stood to gain quite the windfall in kickbacks.
My point being if the local community were tasked with such an endever it never would have made it past the suggestion.