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.
These numbers will. E important when the discussion around 'legality' of sanctuary cities heats up. As it certainly must if we are serious about getting the invasion that is illegal immigration under control.
Massachusetts has had bills presented to make the entire state a sanctuary state, let alone Boston as a sanc. city. As far as losing federal funding goes....I would like to see some of these federally dependent red states, like Georgia, to stop leeching off the blue state taxpayers pronto before threatening to steal more of our money.
This has been repeatedly debunked. NM a blue/purplish state always tops these lists by a very wide margin. They have a small population and many very expensive federal facilities. Los Alamos and Sandia by themselves add about $2800 in per capita spending to that state. While NM benefits from that spending the primary beneficiary is the entire country.
This has been repeatedly debunked. NM a blue/purplish state always tops these lists by a very wide margin. They have a small population and many very expensive federal facilities. Los Alamos and Sandia by themselves add about $2800 in per capita spending to that state. While NM benefits from that spending the primary beneficiary is the entire country.
What I find humorous about this is many Democrats have ignored the complaints about the Federal government being too powerful.
That's not debunking what I said. NM is not a blue state to start. Massachusetts leads this nation in education (K-12 as well as higher education), in STEM, and gives more in federal tax dollars that it takes. That red states feel they are entitled is beyond hypocrisy. I think it would be great if we were to split based on blue and red. Blue and red are about as far apart as possible.
Yes it is because the data you are relying on includes all Federal funding, you can't use such a basic and raw statistic for what is an extremely complex calculation.
I'll provide you with three more examples of many that make this so complex.
I-80 runs from NYC to San Francisco. The longest stretch runs through Nebraska which has a very small population. Per capita it gets a lot more funding for that road any other state. Is it the people in Nebraska or the two cities on either coast it joins the beneficiaries?
Florida has a lot of people that retire, that is self explanatory.
Companies from Texas and their employees drill for natural gas in Pennsylvania, that Federal tax revenue is not attributed to PA.
Quote:
NM is not a blue state to start.
What I said was a blue/purplish state. NM has voted Democrat for President since 1992 with the exception of 2004.
Does it matter whether blue or red, conservative, moderate, progressive? If you are a sanctuary city or state and the Trump administration is able to apply pressure to comply with immigration laws by shutting off some or all of the federal funds received, the result is the same. Just another tool in the 'build the wall' toolkit.
Yes it is because the data you are relying on includes all Federal funding, you can't use such a basic and raw statistic for what is an extremely complex calculation.
I'll provide you with three more examples of many that make this so complex.
I-80 runs from NYC to San Francisco. The longest stretch runs through Nebraska which has a very small population. Per capita it gets a lot more funding for that road any other state. Is it the people in Nebraska or the two cities on either coast it joins the beneficiaries?
Florida has a lot of people that retire, that is self explanatory.
Companies from Texas and their employees drill for natural gas in Pennsylvania, that Federal tax revenue is not attributed to PA.
What I said was a blue/purplish state. NM has voted Democrat for President since 1992 with the exception of 2004.
"“States with heavy reliance on federal grants-in-aid tend to have a combination of modest tax collections (reducing the denominator) and sizable low income populations (correlating with greater per capita reliance on Medicaid, housing assistance, and other low income and poverty relief programming, and with a greater share of federal education support),” said the Tax Foundation."
Please do not hijack this thread for your own purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
"“States with heavy reliance on federal grants-in-aid tend to have a combination of modest tax collections (reducing the denominator) and sizable low income populations (correlating with greater per capita reliance on Medicaid, housing assistance, and other low income and poverty relief programming, and with a greater share of federal education support),” said the Tax Foundation."
Please do not hijack this thread for your own purposes.
The common retort and objection to the government taking federal monies paid out by the tax payer is this argument. It's a sound argument, not a hijack.
I just came across this. Haven't even digested, but the figures reported about the number of sanctuary cities, their sources of and types of federal funding, as well as estimates of how many undocumented or illegal immigrants there are in the top 106 is bound to generate lots of conversation.
So, is trump going to cancel funding to "sanctuary" cities or what?
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.
