DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 6 Army bases named after Confederate leaders get dates for new names

And you've still avoided addressing what I posted everywhere, every time. But you are correct that I posted it in the wrong thread. Maybe you could go to the right thread and address it.

Maybe you should go to the right thread and answer my question that you ignored on the right thread.

Hold yourself to your own standards first, you'd likely get a shred of credibility that way.

Bait and switch deflection as per usual.

So you can't answer a question posed to you on the thread of topic but you wish me to answer an off topic question back in the original thread and if I don't *I'm* the one with a bait and switch.

Double standards, if you didn't have em you'd have no standards at all.

What question did you ask? If you go there and post it I'll address it. I've been asking my question over and over and you still have refused to address it. Your twisting in the wind here.

I asked several times and you ignored it. (why does that sound familiar?)


And you continue to want answers to something that is off topic. You really don't see your own irony do you?

So you're not going to tell me what the question is. Got it.

I am saying I asked, you pointedly did not answer it and you aren't worth my time to deal with it. Do you got that?

Oh I got it. I'm worth you wasting time on to say you refuse to ask the question but not to ask it. I think everybody gets it.

Speaking for everybody, how adorable you think you are.

What i get is you continue to pollute a thread demanding answers to another thread and you can't figure out that you can't admit your own nonsense and would rather just blame someone else.

Now you think you have the power to speak for everybody. This just keeps getting better. And still you continue to evade.

Except I wasn't the one speaking for everyone, I merely pointed out you've done it again. Now put on you big boy pants and figure it out yourself. There is a search feature. Take some agency in your own actions, for a change.

What that data primarily says is that the federal governments spends more money in some states because those states offer some sort of value. For example, the U.S. purchased Alaska because it was of strategic importance. We put military bases there because it is of strategic importance. The natural resources of Alaska are of strategic importance. Alaska is a challenging place to live and the government has to spend money on infrastructure there so that there are local economies that can support government's other interests. In no way is this spending a hand-out.

Is the local Kroger dependent on me when I spend money on groceries there? I suppose it is, but no more that I am dependent on Kroger to provide me with access to those groceries. When I purchase my groceries from Kroger, it is an exchange of value. Not a hand-out from me to Kroger.

That's potentially a great point. But I have researched and I can't find anywhere that suggests military spending / bases etc is a component of "federal spending by state". I've looked in a few different ways to find this information. If you have a source I'd appreciate it.

I found a number of sites talking about federal spending by state - none of them list military as a component. Example:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spending-by-state

I have a question. Is Federal spending in each state include monies on extracting natural resources, such as oil? I looked on that map and those gulf coast states would be an example. How about the building of bases, like some of the states out west? Are those included or not? I really have no idea what the answer is?

I did see this article about states and defense spending:


https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...tate-ranks-highest-in-military-spending/

military spending in Alaska is just an example. We could also point out that the federal government probably hires more border patrol agents in New Mexico than Nebraska. The point is that the smart asset article is clear that it's metrics are based on where the government spends money and hires employees. At the time this was written, they were looking at which states would be most effected by a government shutdown - obviously this would be in the states where the government spends the most money and obviously would disproportionately effect individuals who depend on the the federal government for their salary.

My problem with looking at things the way people are in this thread is that people are trying to make the case that certain states are more important to the system than other states. The truth of the matter is that if the states were split up, 80% of the military capability of the country would be in the hands of more conservative states, and all of the money to finance the operations of a military would be in the states that house the giant corporations that create most of our economy.

I might have stretched the truth on saying you are adorable, but you just spoke for everyone in your post. Do you not understand one can just look at the posts that are here and see what you said?

Yes I know that. You seem to be the one who lacks understanding that concept. "Stretched the truth"? lol

Ok, I admit, you are not adorable. Not even close.

Happy?

This doesn't mean you don't lie about facts to change the narrative so you have something to fight about, it just means I recognize you aren't adorable in the slightest.

The problem is you don't comprehend facts when they're presented to you. For someone who goes around trashing threads and having constant engagement with me it sure seems odd it's me you are accusing of fighting. I'm glad you don't think I'm adorable. Someone of your ilk thinking that would be disturbing to me. I would think MTG would be more your type.

USA Federal funding to states.

A positive balance of payments means the state’s residents, businesses and municipalities receive more in federal government spending than they pay in taxes. Our report refers to these states as the “getters.”

On the other end are “giver” states whose residents and businesses pay more in taxes than the state receives in federal spending.

A crisis can shift the balance

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, introduced the balance of payments calculation in 1977 to demonstrate that his state was being shortchanged in federal spending.

Two years earlier, President Gerald Ford had threatened to reject federal funding to help New York City stem a financial crisis, inspiring the famous newspaper headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.” He later signed legislation approving federal loans, which the city paid back with interest.

Moynihan’s annual reports, called “The Fisc,” tracked the impact of federal spending and tax collection on the states.

The lineup is driven by demographics. States with a larger share of higher-income residents will consistently pay more in income taxes. States with older populations will receive more through social security and medicare. A state’s position can also shift during times of crisis, such as after a hurricane, when federal assistance flows into the region.

Why are a few states such big givers?

The biggest givers in our latest report, based on 2018 data, were New York, which paid in US$35 billion more than it received; New Jersey, which paid $21 billion more; Massachusetts, which paid $16 billion more; and Connecticut, which paid $14 billion more than it received.

Combined, these states paid over $50 billion more in taxes than they received in federal spending. For each dollar workers and businesses paid in taxes, the states got an average of 90 cents back. (When Cuomo cited the differences between New York and Kentucky, he was looking at four years of data.)

That negative balance of payments in the Northeast is driven by the large concentration of high-income residents.

The U.S. has a progressive income tax structure, and individuals in these state have a higher income-tax burden. As a result, the revenue side of the states’ balance of payments calculation is higher than the spending side.

Why do some states get more?

The getters can be broken down into two categories: those with both high incomes and high levels of federal spending, and those with low incomes and high federal spending.

Virginia and Maryland are two high-income states with higher than average per capita tax burdens, but they also receive high levels of federal funding because they are adjacent to Washington, D.C. and benefit from contract spending and federal worker wages.

The low-income states that receive a lot of federal spending per person are primarily in the Southeast and include Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alabama.

With lower-than-average income levels, residents in these states contribute less through income taxes. They also receive higher-than-average levels of spending from programs such as Social Security, Medicare, social assistance grants and contracts.

Why does it matter?

A state’s financial relationship with the federal government can have profound long-term policy implications for the state, its residents and businesses.

That’s especially true now as the coronavirus crisis sends costs soaring for local and state governments, while slashing their income and sales tax revenues. It isn’t just in New York, Illinois and the other Democratic-leaning states with large urban centers – the virus is creating financial stress on state and local governments across the country.

Understanding the balance of payments data will help inform policymakers as they renegotiate these state-federal financial relationships through federal assistance in response to the COVID-19 public health crisis and subsequent economic recovery.

red states be crying for their handouts when they succeed..lol

What is included in federal dollars?

Supporting military facilities?

Farm subsidies to keep the country fed?

Road dollars to keep the country moving?

All of those tend to skew against states with a lower population density.

I'm pretty sure the poverty rate does too.

1. Mississippi - 19.26%

2. Louisiana - 18.56%

3. New Mexico - 18.06%

4. West Virginia - 17.01%

5. Kentucky - 15.89%

6. Arkansas - 15.35%

7. District of Columbia - 15.32%

8. Alabama - 14.96%

9. Oklahoma - 14.46%

10. Tennessee - 13.53%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poverty-rate-by-state

Sounds like a misappropriation of funds in those states. Maybe the fed should take a real close look at their books to see if the funds are being distributed appropriately.