Another Round Of Trying To Forgive Loans

[Scouts Honor]

21 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

.  Another example was that some states have military bases that a lot of federal dollars go to.  Some states will get federal dollars for construction projects but the bid goes to out of state contractor and suppliers  Federal dollars are spent on so many different things, in so many different states that change or move around from day to day, that it would be different by the time you calculated what they all are. 

this is how it was debunked

[Le duke]

this is how it was debunked

So, CA has more military bases than almost all of the poorer red states, yet still comes out with a lot less federal funding?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scouts Honor]

which is why they get so much money back

[Scouts Honor]

perhaps the brain drain from cali the last few years has brought receipts down

[Offthemat]

10 minutes ago, Le duke said:

So, CA has more military bases than almost all of the poorer red states, yet still comes out with a lot less federal funding?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Per capita?

[Le duke]

which is why they get so much money back

Yet less than a lot of red states with fewer military bases. They literally get less back per dollar sent than ~45 other states. That’s the point.

So, again, CA gets less federal funding per capita than many red southern states despite having many more federal installations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigbrog]

3 hours ago, Le duke said:

 

Yet less than a lot of red states with fewer military bases. They literally get less back per dollar sent than ~45 other states. That’s the point.

So, again, CA gets less federal funding per capita than many red southern states despite having many more federal installations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Come on Le Duke..get over the partisan crap

 

[Plasmodium]

7 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Your take is such a partisan one it is almost laughable.  You do realize that the reason Suckafornia contributes so much is they are taxed WAY more than say, Florida due to each individual states policies.  And the reason for a state to receive funding is vast and should be taken into account when making such statements of "blue states" fund "red states".  It is a reach at best to try and make any sort of deduction about "blue" or "red" states from how much federal funding a state gets.  Each state would have to be looked at individually as to their balance sheet.  

It actually would have been fine if you said something like "According to some formula a group of people used, 7 out of 10 states that receive the most federal funding typically vote republican.  You can NOT make any sort of comparative to one state versus the other because of it.  Heck you can't really make a determination of "good" or "bad" in terms of the individual state depending on how much federal funding it receives.  

Overall it is a stupid way to look at things and a laughable way to try and divide further.

Classic.

[Plasmodium]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

can we just all agree that California is a mismanaged trainwreck?

i mean, things are getting dark around here. let's just all find something we can agree on.

Agree CA is mismanaged and given the numbers, what adjective(s) do you have for KY and MS?

[jross]

A kid on my youth baseball team left California because the parents (one a navy seal) disagreed with how the state was run and because it exceeded their woke threshold even in the rural locations.  

[Husker_Du]

11 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Agree CA is mismanaged and given the numbers, what adjective(s) do you have for KY and MS?

there's a difference between mismanaged and not having an abundance of resources. if KY, MS, etc have resources and dropping the ball, then yes, they deserve to be called out.

what's very clear is CA has one of the biggest economies in the world and currently, b/c of policy and ideology, very wealthy cities look like zombie land.

[Bigbrog]

18 hours ago, Le duke said:

 

Are you honestly suggesting that Florida’s state tax policy has anything to do with FEDERAL taxes in California?

We have reached a new level here. You cannot be helped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Huh??  How in the hell did you get that from what I wrote??  

And the irony of YOU saying "We have reached a new level here. You cannot be helped."...weak AF.  How do you say you lost a debate without saying you lost a debate....

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

there's a difference between mismanaged and not having an abundance of resources. if KY, MS, etc have resources and dropping the ball, then yes, they deserve to be called out.

what's very clear is CA has one of the biggest economies in the world and currently, b/c of policy and ideology, very wealthy cities look like zombie land.

Resources? C'mon now.  Others do more with much less.   Call 'em out, don't just criticize the liberals.  Only a fool will say the governments of states consistently at the bottom of metrics measuring success have served their citizens well.  California is not one of those, BTW.

Wealthy cities in California look like zombie land because by comparison to many other locales, California weather and city policies are generally favorable to the homeless.  This is a a national problem, not a California problem.

[DJT]

On 7/16/2023 at 6:27 PM, Le duke said:

So, again, CA gets less federal funding per capita than many red southern states despite having many more federal installations.

 

False. 9 of the top 10 federal aid per capita states are blue. Wyoming is the outlier, due to the extremely low population, the Native American population and the whole state being a National Park. The bottom 10 are quite very red… New Mexico is a little purple. Before you go saying “cost of living” yada yada… The median income of Connecticut ($38k) is 150% that of Mississippi ($26k), and they get 250%+ the per capital federal aid. What this really shows is that the .1% in the blue states pay more than their fair share of taxes. Now let’s not even get into the left’s boogeyman of “corporate welfare” that’s not figured in, which undoubtedly affords that .1% to opportunity to attain such earnings to be taxed and carry the weight for the rest of the individuals in those blue states.

 

Not to pile on, but another interesting thing to mention is the amount of state debt. The top five (very blue) states - New York ($156B) California ($144B), Massachusetts ($77B), Illinois ($65B), New Jersey ($64B) - have more state debt than the other 45 states combined.

Edited July 18, 2023 by DJT

[Plasmodium]

29 minutes ago, DJT said:

False. 9 of the top 10 federal aid per capita states are blue. Wyoming is the outlier, due to the extremely low population, the Native American population and the whole state being a National Park. The bottom 10 are quite very red… New Mexico is a little purple. Before you go saying “cost of living” yada yada… The median income of Connecticut ($38k) is 150% that of Mississippi ($26k), and they get 250%+ the per capital federal aid. What this really shows is that the .1% in the blue states pay more than their fair share of taxes. Now let’s not even get into the left’s boogeyman of “corporate welfare” that’s not figured in, which undoubtedly affords that .1% to opportunity to attain such earnings to be taxed and carry the weight for the rest of the individuals in those blue states.

 

Not to pile on, but another interesting thing to mention is the amount of state debt. The top five (very blue) states - New York ($156B) California ($144B), Massachusetts ($77B), Illinois ($65B), New Jersey ($64B) - have more state debt than the other 45 states combined.

So you skip the taxation part and only mention the spending.  Playing fast and loose with dictionary.  How is it "aid" to Connecticut  or even California when they send  to DC about what they receive?

Who takes responsibility for the income in MS?  Dems?

[Le duke]

False. 9 of the top 10 federal aid per capita states are blue. Wyoming is the outlier, due to the extremely low population, the Native American population and the whole state being a National Park. The bottom 10 are quite very red… New Mexico is a little purple. Before you go saying “cost of living” yada yada… The median income of Connecticut ($38k) is 150% that of Mississippi ($26k), and they get 250%+ the per capital federal aid. What this really shows is that the .1% in the blue states pay more than their fair share of taxes. Now let’s not even get into the left’s boogeyman of “corporate welfare” that’s not figured in, which undoubtedly affords that .1% to opportunity to attain such earnings to be taxed and carry the weight for the rest of the individuals in those blue states.

 
Not to pile on, but another interesting thing to mention is the amount of state debt. The top five (very blue) states - New York ($156B) California ($144B), Massachusetts ($77B), Illinois ($65B), New Jersey ($64B) - have more state debt than the other 45 states combined.

Again: return per dollar sent.

What you showed is that blue states get more money; I’m arguing that they don’t get ENOUGH and that red states get TOO MUCH aid as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DJT]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

Again: return per dollar sent.

What you showed is that blue states get more money; I’m arguing that they don’t get ENOUGH and that red states get TOO MUCH aid as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was responding directly to your federal funding per capita, which is precisely opposite of what you think (I was a bit surprised… I figured it’d track with median incomes).

Again, what this shows is that there is a very small percentage of taxpayers in blue states that pay a whole lot of taxes (California median income of $32k sure isn’t paying much of anything). Hell, the pro athletes alone in California probably pay more federal taxes than the whole state of Mississippi.

With our progressive tax code, it only follows that states without high-paying jobs will have far lower receipts both on individual income tax (52% of federal revenue) and payroll taxes (33% of federal revenue)… for reference, only 10% of federal revenue is corporate income tax.

And, if we really want to get into the dirt, let’s not forget that the South was burned to the ground, its economy was completely upended, and forced to reinvent its society. We will spend 1000x more (inflation adjusted) on rebuilding Ukraine than we did on the South, and we wonder why the Southern states are still so far behind.

[Husker_Du]

13 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Resources? C'mon now.  Others do more with much less.   Call 'em out, don't just criticize the liberals.  Only a fool will say the governments of states consistently at the bottom of metrics measuring success have served their citizens well.  California is not one of those, BTW.

Wealthy cities in California look like zombie land because by comparison to many other locales, California weather and city policies are generally favorable to the homeless.  This is a a national problem, not a California problem.

look, as Bob Dole pointed out, it is a form of socialism, by definition.

i don't like socialism and i don't have any sort of affinity to the state of Mississippi. furthermore, it is the elected officials job to create economic channels.

that being said, if you think California, by the very nature and size of their state, doesn't have more resources than most states idk what to tell you. their GDP ranks up their with the best countries on earth. and yet they have major major quality of life problems and the worst purchasing power of any state (by far) other than hawaii. 

[Plasmodium]

6 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

look, as Bob Dole pointed out, it is a form of socialism, by definition.

i don't like socialism and i don't have any sort of affinity to the state of Mississippi. furthermore, it is the elected officials job to create economic channels.

that being said, if you think California, by the very nature and size of their state, doesn't have more resources than most states idk what to tell you. their GDP ranks up their with the best countries on earth. and yet they have major major quality of life problems and the worst purchasing power of any state (by far) other than hawaii. 

What is socialism?  I don't see Bob's name.  Do you honestly think MS or KY has fewer natural resources than VT or NE?  It has nothing to do with resources.  It is about bad hundreds of years of bad governance. California has plenty of problems, no doubt. They are easy to pick on because they are the most populace and high income.  If you want critics - be successful. They certainly are better off by almost any meaningful measure than the red belt south.

[Scouts Honor]

10 hours ago, DJT said:

I was responding directly to your federal funding per capita, which is precisely opposite of what you think (I was a bit surprised… I figured it’d track with median incomes).

Again, what this shows is that there is a very small percentage of taxpayers in blue states that pay a whole lot of taxes (California median income of $32k sure isn’t paying much of anything). Hell, the pro athletes alone in California probably pay more federal taxes than the whole state of Mississippi.

With our progressive tax code, it only follows that states without high-paying jobs will have far lower receipts both on individual income tax (52% of federal revenue) and payroll taxes (33% of federal revenue)… for reference, only 10% of federal revenue is corporate income tax.

And, if we really want to get into the dirt, let’s not forget that the South was burned to the ground, its economy was completely upended, and forced to reinvent its society. We will spend 1000x more (inflation adjusted) on rebuilding Ukraine than we did on the South, and we wonder why the Southern states are still so far behind.

stop.just stop with the logic.

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

What is socialism?  I don't see Bob's name.  Do you honestly think MS or KY has fewer natural resources than VT or NE?  It has nothing to do with resources.  It is about bad hundreds of years of bad governance. California has plenty of problems, no doubt. They are easy to pick on because they are the most populace and high income.  If you want critics - be successful. They certainly are better off by almost any meaningful measure than the red belt south.

 

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

What is socialism?  I don't see Bob's name. 

Bob said it somewhere in the last couple days. maybe a different thread. the point being redistribution of wealth/resources.

Do you honestly think MS or KY has fewer natural resources than VT or NE? 

I'm talking about more than just natural resources. you're right though. but bruh, comparing Cali to KY? just stop. or compare Campbell to Iowa.

It is about bad hundreds of years of bad governance. 

hundreds of years of bad governance, you say? like all the crapiest cities in america that have voted Blue since 1900's? c'mon. you're telling me their sustained ills comes from voting for socialist policies that whole time?

but that's different, right?

 

[Plasmodium]

22 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

 

I feel like this part where I post unflattering pictures of Appalachia or some other red area.  Or maybe pictures of Malibu or Yosemite to show a different view of California.  That would be pointless.

[Scouts Honor]

so your statement that cali is easy to pick on b/c of the populace... what were you saying? 

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

 

Socialism is not all bad.  Real estate is classic socialism in every way and it works.

What resources then?  Industries grew in California and brought money, sure.  But my point stands that the huge swath of mismanaged red states are not at the bottom of metrics because of resources.  They have enough to be middle of the pack!  I do say hundreds of years of bad governance.  As far as the blue cities go - there is good, bad and ugly everywhere.   For example, NYC is beautiful and full of opportunities, but has a down side for sure.  Some parts are disturbing.  That is the nature of 8 million people in a few square miles.