Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently read that NH had falled to "second to last" of all the states in terms of money returned to us for every dollar we send to Washington. We get about 60 cents back on the dollar, if I remember right.
Whether a state votes Republican or Democrat depends on a great many variables, including the media "pushing" for one candidate or another, the candidate (old, young, dumb as dirt?), the number of citizens that still think voting means ANYTHING, and what party the voter's PARENTs voted for.
NH always historically voted Republican and was fiscally conservative, with relatively low taxes (although all States in the nation are pretty much at the same ridiculous level of overtaxation, some are worse than others). But as the Mass. people fled their liberal Taxachusetts utopia and moved here en masse, suddenly we were voting overall Democrat.
So the new NH Democratic State government, as always, spent like the drunken idiots in Washington. The budgets now always have huge deficits, the Court System runs about half the days of the week, there was a failed attempt to steal over a hundred million dollars from a malpractice fund that doctors had to pay for to protect themselves from the Democratic tort liability lawyers, we now have a wholesale selling of revenue-generating State lands to meet CURRENT over-spending, etc. But amazingly, the thousands of "Diversity" and "Inviting Immigrants from Africa to move to Manchester at taxpayer expense" and other Mass-type programs that caused the massive deficits weren't touched!
I have no doubt the Republicans will soon regain control of NH and try to deal with the massive debts and idiotic new "programs" (that coincidentally benefit NO working NH resident).
As to Red vs Blue States, whether the State overall votes one way or the other doesn't really have much affect on the individuals living in that state, who have so much of their paychecks confiscated by Washington.
Money sent back to the State from Washington NEVER goes back to the taxpayers it was originally confiscated from. It goes to State politicians, who then distribute it to their brother-in-law's consulting company, their wife's paving company (actually the politician's paving co, but women-owned businesses get extra government money), and a whole network of other relatives and campaign contributors.
How about a system where we keep the money we earn (and find we have 10 times as much!), and every corrupt politician disappears in the Revolution? Have you all been reading what Thomas Jefferson said must happen when government has gotten to this point?
and poor states like mississippi (POOR and high level of minorities) .....Mississippi$10,868,707,0002,918,785$3,723.71
has nothing to due with red/blue
there is more military spending PER CAPITA in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (washington DC) that any other state
You’re missing the point…again.
From 1986 onward, Alaska has received more federal money than it has contributed. Every single year.
From 1986 onward, California has contributed more federal money than it has received. Every single year.
Even if you take out military spending in 2005, the average Alaskan received $4000 in net tax dollars. On the other hand, the average Californian gave away roughly $2500 in net tax dollars.
These dollars don’t exist in a vacuum. Whether from defense or non-defense spending, these dollars are introduced into a local economy, thus propping it up. It creates a demand for goods and services where there wasn’t one. Likewise, when you send tax dollars out of a state--without replacing them--it hurts the statewide economy.
Alaskans—some of the wealthiest US citizens by per capita income—have their standard of living heavily subsidized by the other American taxpayers. There are various reasons for this. But then for some Alaskans—particularly Sarah Palin—to turn around screech about federal spending is pure hypocrisy.
From 1986 onward, Alaska has taken in more federal money than it has given. Every single year.
From 1986 onward, California has contributed more federal money than it has received. Every single year.
Even if you take out military spending in 2005, the average Alaskan received $4000 in net tax dollars. On the other hand, the average Californian gave away roughly $2500 in net tax dollars.
These dollars don’t exist in a vacuum. Whether from defense or non-defense spending, these dollars are introduced into a local economy, thus propping it up. It creates a demand for goods and services where there wasn’t one. Likewise, when you send tax dollars out of a state--without replacing them--it hurts the statewide economy.
Alaskans—some of the wealthiest US citizens by per capita income—have their standard of living heavily subsidized by the other American taxpayers. There are various reasons for this. But then for some Alaskans—particularly Sarah Palin—to turn around screech about federal spending is pure hypocrisy.
You are still completely clueless. Or maybe we should just eliminate all 144 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, close all 16 federal military bases, and terminate the 46,000 federal employees in Alaska. Only an idiot thinks those federal dollars goes to Alaskan citizens or the state government.
The last time I checked the US military, National Parks, and all other federal programs were there to benefit the entire nation. At least that is the story you leftists preach. Now, suddenly, you get your panties in a wad when the massive unconstitutional spending by your buddy leftists in Congress ends up going to federal programs and federal employees in Red states. Since it obvious that you are incapable of grasping reality, I will provide you with a solution - tell your leftist buddies in Congress to stop spending.
Example, spending in Alaska, to bring the rest of the nation oil. You may send Alaska cash, but they send you oil, and the price of that oil..
So, where do I sign up for my free Alaskan oil? Alaska "sends" us oil after taking their cut, on average $1,500.00 per every man, woman, and child, which is then sold on the same spot market as oil from anywhere else on the planet. Thank you Alaska.
Quote:
It ignores federal spending on the military and bases etc..
So, is the argument that the only military bases are in red states? How odd! No Naval Station Great Lakes in Illinois, no Ft. Dix in New Jersey, No Ft. Drum in New York, or West Point for that matter and let's not even get started on the number of bases in California.
Quote:
It ignores federal REQUIREMENTS as a job function in the Constitution and claims that spending IS "welfare".. Its not..
And these same job functions, again, are only conducted or disproportionately conducted in Red states? Yeah right.
By the way
When if comes to welfare case loads, Red states have little to brag about.
Total recipients per capita:
Tennessee #4
Alaska #7
West Virginia #8
Montana #15
Mississippi #25
Nebraska #26
Texas #28
Georgia #29
Now check this out.
Illinois #50
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
You are still completely clueless. Or maybe we should just eliminate all 144 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, close all 16 federal military bases, and terminate the 46,000 federal employees in Alaska. Only an idiot thinks those federal dollars goes to Alaskan citizens or the state government.
Not so fast...
Federal spending in Alaska equals the total amount spent by private industry $7.6 Billion dollars
1 in 3 jobs in Alaska depend on Federal spending
Grants to state and local government now equals all money spend on military and civilian operations combined, $3.1 billion dollars.
Medicaid accounts for $500 million in Federal dollars.
Alaskan companies won 70% of the largest federal purchase contracts.
State and local governments get $3 of every 10 dollars of federal money spent.
Individuals get $4 of every 10 dollars of federal money spent!
You are still completely clueless. Or maybe we should just eliminate all 144 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, close all 16 federal military bases, and terminate the 46,000 federal employees in Alaska. Only an idiot thinks those federal dollars goes to Alaskan citizens or the state government.
The last time I checked the US military, National Parks, and all other federal programs were there to benefit the entire nation. At least that is the story you leftists preach. Now, suddenly, you get your panties in a wad when the massive unconstitutional spending by your buddy leftists in Congress ends up going to federal programs and federal employees in Red states. Since it obvious that you are incapable of grasping reality, I will provide you with a solution - tell your leftist buddies in Congress to stop spending.
The Department of the Interior spent roughly 360 million dollars in Alaska in 2005. That is roughly $530 per person. Even if you remove defense spending and expenditures from the Department of the Interior, the average Alaskan still receives roughly $3500 in net federal tax dollars. Of course, that assumes all of the Department of Interior budget goes to the Parks, which it doesn't. Most of the National Park land in Alaska so desolate and wild, there is little maintenance cost.
Long story short, the American people are subsidizing the Alaskan economy.
Of course. All the blue states in the Northeast and Midwest that paid for their own toll roads before the Interstate Highway Act then had to pay for the free highways in Middle American red states.
But yeah this doesn't fit with the storyline so we don't hear about it.
The Department of the Interior spent roughly 360 million dollars in Alaska in 2005. That is roughly $530 per person. Even if you remove defense spending and expenditures from the Department of the Interior, the average Alaskan still receives roughly $3500 in net federal tax dollars. Of course, that assumes all of the Department of Interior budget goes to the Parks, which it doesn't. Most of the National Park land in Alaska so desolate and wild, there is little maintenance cost.
Long story short, the American people are subsidizing the Alaskan economy.
Defense spending by the Department of the Interior, that's a new one. ROFLMAO! Does the Department of Defense know about all this defense spending by the Department of the Interior? You are obviously trolling. The long story short, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Defense spending by the Department of the Interior, that's a new one. ROFLMAO! Does the Department of Defense know about all this defense spending by the Department of the Interior? You are obviously trolling. The long story short, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Really? That's your response?
I'm not suggesting Defense Spending is part of the Department of the Interior.
What I'm saying is that even if you remove Defense Spending and spending from the Department of the Interior, your average Alaskan is heavy subsidized.
Quite a few of these mama grizzlies are in effect welfare queens.
So why do the Republicans have a problem with the WEALTHY paying more in taxes that the typical middle-class individual? Aren't they...WEALTHIER??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since it obvious that you are incapable of grasping reality, I will provide you with a solution - tell your leftist buddies in Congress to stop spending.
