What is?

[hispls]

Are you suggesting that it’s only the black Republicans that gain from a state being a net-taker vs giver?

I'm not suggesting anything. You made a claim and I asked you to show me some data of what they pay vs. what they take. Suggestion doesn't enter into it, just post up the figures and we can see for ourselves which number is higher or lower.

overall federal monies that flow into a state, compared to what that state pays in to the federal coffers,

So this does include government contracts and federal employee salaries? Do you have a source for this claim? Does your source break down where the money goes?

8:10 top takers are red states. The top giver states show a similar ratio, but with the majority being blue states.

Now do population density and again, please break down exactly what federal money is counted and where it is going.

red states should heed the Republican ideals of self-sufficiency

Can you prove they are not? If a large portion of federal money going into a state comes from investing in interstate highways, military bases, federal buildings, national parks, etc. do the states even have a choice of whether this money can be spent in them once those territories' sovereignty is already ceded to the federal government?

But of course we're not supposed to ask for the details about actual figures and sums, we're supposed to just take your word for all of this and pull the blue lever so that "your team" will "win".

 

[RobGMN]

I'm not suggesting anything. You made a claim and I asked you to show me some data of what they pay vs. what they take. Suggestion doesn't enter into it, just post up the figures and we can see for ourselves which number is higher or lower.


So this does include government contracts and federal employee salaries? Do you have a source for this claim? Does your source break down where the money goes?


Now do population density and again, please break down exactly what federal money is counted and where it is going.


Can you prove they are not? If a large portion of federal money going into a state comes from investing in interstate highways, military bases, federal buildings, national parks, etc. do the states even have a choice of whether this money can be spent in them once those territories' sovereignty is already ceded to the federal government?

But of course we're not supposed to ask for the details about actual figures and sums, we're supposed to just take your word for all of this and pull the blue lever so that "your team" will "win".

You’re late to the conversation, and I’ve posted all of the info you’re requesting already.
I’ve included screenshots plus links to the pages they came from so I can’t be accused of making the info up or modifying it to help a narrative.

It’s not secret info and can be found from many other sources than the ones I provided if someone wanted corroborating data.

And to speak to the oft-repeated line about how dat can be "manipulated" to meet an end: Why is there so much info and commentary out there regarding this imbalance, yet nothing out there that shows the opposite? If data can be so easily manipulated without anyone figuring it out, SOMEONE should be also doing it on the side of Republicans. There is certainly no shortage of right-wing info portals that contain misinformation and outright lies. Why stop at economics?

 

[hispls]

WHEN A STATE GETS BACK MORE FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN THEY GIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT, IT MAKES THEM A "WELFARE STATE" BY DEFAULT.

So are these states allowed to just tell the federal government to not have military bases in them? Are they allowed to tell Washington they cannot award government contracts to companies in their states? Can they prevent congress from building and maintaining interstate highways? Can a state prevent residents from working for the federal government or applying for various federal welfare programs?

Please tell me you're just being purposely obtuse here for the sake of trying to come up with a "gotcha!" win for "your team".

 

[hispls]

I’ve posted all of the info you’re requesting already.

Not going to be arsed to search more. Point me to the numbers as far as what black people in Mississippi pay in federal taxes each year vs. what they take in federal aids and government salaries.

 

[RobGMN]

Not going to be arsed to search more. Point me to the numbers as far as what black people in Mississippi pay in federal taxes each year vs. what they take in federal aids and government salaries.

You won’t do your own research beyond all the info I’ve provided, but you want ME to do research to help you prove what seems to be a theory rooted in racism?

Try again, bud. If you want to prove a race-based theory, go for it.

 

[RobGMN]

So are these states allowed to just tell the federal government to not have military bases in them? Are they allowed to tell Washington they cannot award government contracts to companies in their states? Can they prevent congress from building and maintaining interstate highways? Can a state prevent residents from working for the federal government or applying for various federal welfare programs?

Please tell me you're just being purposely obtuse here for the sake of trying to come up with a "gotcha!" win for "your team".

Military bases are owned and directly funded by the government. They don’t give states federal money to operate the bases.

Did that change at some point in time?

States own and operate interstate highways, built at their discretion with funds given tonthem by the feds/Congress. The funds were made available and the states chose to use them. As owner/operators, they should be funding the highways themselves.

Or did the history of the Federal Highway Act change?

 

[Jimi77]

So are these states allowed to just tell the federal government to not have military bases in them? Are they allowed to tell Washington they cannot award government contracts to companies in their states? Can they prevent congress from building and maintaining interstate highways? Can a state prevent residents from working for the federal government or applying for various federal welfare programs?

Please tell me you're just being purposely obtuse here for the sake of trying to come up with a "gotcha!" win for "your team".

OTOH, do these states offer tax breaks to attract gov't contractors, do they send send Reps and Senators to congress to bring home the gravy? Conversely, the blue states funding the "taker states'" federal budgets are supporting higher taxes while the "takers" seem to be the same folks who ***** the loudest when there is a tax raise on the table.

 

[hispls]

You won’t do your own research beyond all the info I’ve provided, but you want ME to do research to help you prove what seems to be a theory rooted in racism?

Try again, bud. If you want to prove a race-based theory, go for it.

You are the one who made the claim and then went on to say that you already posted the answers to all my questions when I asked you for details. Did you or did you not post up the details? Either way, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

do these states offer tax breaks to attract gov't contractors,

Why would a state need to offer tax breaks to attract businesses who basically get a blank check to complete projects (or often to not ever produce results whatsoever?). Also it's mostly cities that do tax wheeling and dealing to attract businesses, most newsworthy recently was some big proposed deal by NYC to try to attract an Amazon office.

That said, a lot of those contractors set up in places with proximity to whatever talent pool they will need or their end users or suppliers (near universities, near military bases, etc.). Or just wherever the execs/owners want to live.

do they send send Reps and Senators to congress to bring home the gravy?

Literally every state does this. This is the value of having a senior senator who can get on the Ways and Means committee.

the "takers" seem to be the same folks who ***** the loudest when there is a tax raise on the table.

You people paint up some strawman of these states being one tobacco chewing yokel in overalls cashing his welfare check on his way out to vote for Trump. Some combination of being extremely dull witted and dishonest I'd wager. Just like Rob won't give us any statistics of how much African descended residents of Mississippi take vs. pay in federal taxes you nor the people who come up with these assinine partisan gotcha!'s are going to try to look too deeply into this issue or have an honest discussion about the issue.

 

[Jimi77]

You are the one who made the claim and then went on to say that you already posted the answers to all my questions when I asked you for details. Did you or did you not post up the details? Either way, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.



Why would a state need to offer tax breaks to attract businesses who basically get a blank check to complete projects (or often to not ever produce results whatsoever?). Also it's mostly cities that do tax wheeling and dealing to attract businesses, most newsworthy recently was some big proposed deal by NYC to try to attract an Amazon office.

That said, a lot of those contractors set up in places with proximity to whatever talent pool they will need or their end users or suppliers (near universities, near military bases, etc.). Or just wherever the execs/owners want to live.


Literally every state does this. This is the value of having a senior senator who can get on the Ways and Means committee.


You people paint up some strawman of these states being one tobacco chewing yokel in overalls cashing his welfare check on his way out to vote for Trump. Some combination of being extremely dull witted and dishonest I'd wager. Just like Rob won't give us any statistics of how much African descended residents of Mississippi take vs. pay in federal taxes you nor the people who come up with these assinine partisan gotcha!'s are going to try to look too deeply into this issue or have an honest discussion about the issue.

I never portrayed these states as anything other than what they are, states that take in more Federal spending dollars than they contribute. I even disagreed with Rob labeling them as "welfare states."

All I know is I find it "odd" that the same senators, Reps and governors that rail against welfare transfer payments seem to be the ones benefiting the most from it all the while being funded by the very blue states that they rail against. If you have some evidence to the contrary please feel to delve deeper, present said evidence and we can have a honest discussion about it. I'm not sure what blacks net pay/receive in taxes in Mississippi proves, so you'll have to clarify what your point is if and when you get around to presenting that information.

 

[RobGMN]

You are the one who made the claim and then went on to say that you already posted the answers to all my questions when I asked you for details. Did you or did you not post up the details? Either way, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.



Why would a state need to offer tax breaks to attract businesses who basically get a blank check to complete projects (or often to not ever produce results whatsoever?). Also it's mostly cities that do tax wheeling and dealing to attract businesses, most newsworthy recently was some big proposed deal by NYC to try to attract an Amazon office.

That said, a lot of those contractors set up in places with proximity to whatever talent pool they will need or their end users or suppliers (near universities, near military bases, etc.). Or just wherever the execs/owners want to live.


Literally every state does this. This is the value of having a senior senator who can get on the Ways and Means committee.


You people paint up some strawman of these states being one tobacco chewing yokel in overalls cashing his welfare check on his way out to vote for Trump. Some combination of being extremely dull witted and dishonest I'd wager. Just like Rob won't give us any statistics of how much African descended residents of Mississippi take vs. pay in federal taxes you nor the people who come up with these assinine partisan gotcha!'s are going to try to look too deeply into this issue or have an honest discussion about the issue.

You keep trying to say I have made this a case regarding people of African descent.

I did no such thing. YOU brought ethnic background into the discussion. If YOU want to somehow tie the imbalance to ethnicity, then go for it. Don’t ask ne to do your research for you; do your own homework.

I have posted plenty of relevant info that provides answers to your other non-ethnicity questions. If the info is not acceptable to you, I’m not going to find even more sources on your behalf.

If you want to keep arguing to say in some way the numbers and info I have shared are inaccurate or wholly false, then post up some facts to prove it. Conjecture and false narrative may work on others here, but it isn’t going to work on me.
Provide proof.

 

[Jimi77]

Here's a pretty decent breakdown of what money Mississippi received from the Fed, from which agencies, whether it was a direct payment, grant, contract, etc. I'm not sure how any of that proves Mississippi isn't a net tax dollar receiver or that their don't rail against taxes, federal spending, etc.

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov

 

[Jimi77]

Senator Cindy, there with her hand out, bringing home the bacon. Of course she rails against taxes despite representing a net recipient state. Ironically, Cindy thinks there should be a balanced budget amendment, much like the one in Mississippi that doesn't work. Their state can't balance their budget, even with the surplus of Federal dollars following in.

WICKER, HYDE-SMITH APPLAUD $185 MILLION IN TAX CREDITS TO PROMOTE JOBS IN DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES | Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith

www.hydesmith.senate.gov

Budget | Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith

www.hydesmith.senate.gov

Mississippi: state and local government debt FY 2027 | Statista

In the fiscal year of 2021, the state of Mississippi had state debt totaling 7.47 billion U.S.

www.statista.com

 

[hispls]

Military bases are owned and directly funded by the government. They don’t give states federal money to operate the bases.

So all the money spent to staff and operate those bases just instantly vanishes out of the state or is forever trapped in a black hole never leaving the base? Have you never been in an area with a military base? They literally are the entire economy of the region and the effect is much more dramatic in remote/rural areas. Again I ask, are you really this stupid or are you being intentionally deceitful?

I find it "odd" that the same senators, Reps and governors that rail against welfare transfer payments seem to be the ones benefiting the most from it all the while being funded by the very blue states that they rail against.

So in your mind a political platform of "we shouldn't pay people to not work" is incompatible with "the entire nation benefits from our farms, ports, and highways but the population density and economy of our state cannot fund these things." or "we are mandated by laws we did not create to provide specific services for education that simply cannot be done in remote areas via local funding".

In micro terms I live in a town population 500 and a bit and I'm on the budget committee here. Our entire operating budget for all town services (including some road debt that was a really bad deal where the old first selectman got a big kickback for half-assing some roads before skipping town) our entire budget is around 1.2M almost 800K of this is for the school district to which we send 50 some odd children. Are we allowed to just tell them to pound sand and pay the Amish to build us a little red 1 room schoolhouse where we can teach them to read out of the bible? The conversation came up between me and another member of the committee here and the obvious answer is that there are specific requirements as to what constitutes "education" that we are legally bound to provide for our residents and eventually when our little town (already in the top 10 highest taxed towns in the state) goes insolvent from waste, mismanagement, and having to conform to mandates from on high will eventually need to be bailed out from the state or county. But I guess if I don't want to just spend more money we don't have on shit we don't need right now I should probably strongly oppose any state money when the time comes to un-**** our financial situation.

You keep trying to say I have made this a case regarding people of African descent.

See screencap. I'd say don't make assertions if you're not willing to back them up, but we all know that's not going to happen.

If YOU want to somehow tie the imbalance to ethnicity

I'm pretty indifferent, but it's telling that you're so upset about this. You've gone to great lengths of generalization and reduction to prove that these states are full of people who cash their welfare checks on the way down to vote for Trump but clutch your pearls at the thought of even considering that there might be people cashing their welfare checks on the way to vote for Biden and some of them may have some Bantu ancestry.

Here's a pretty decent breakdown of what money Mississippi received from the Fed, from which agencies,

The majority being Social Security and Medicaid. Does anybody here know why these moneys go to the state? Are states responsible for dolling them out or something?

 

[hispls]

Senator Cindy, there with her hand out, bringing home the bacon.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but if you want to be honest here I think you will find the only point of contention in Washington is never about whether or not to piss away money it is only who's pet projects or constituents get what size piece of the pie and to a smaller degree from whom they will need to steal or borrow the money to make it happen.

Again, do you believe a platform of "the constitution requires we maintain a navy, let's see about getting a couple billion to build some ships in my state where it benefits my constituents" is incompatible with "perhaps we don't need to send billions of dollars to countries that hate us."

What's particularly convenient is that with all you mouth breathers so emotionally invested in your red or blue teams like it's a sportsball match nobody even bothers saying "do we really need this?" and "how can we afford this?" when it's their "team" coming up with some new clever idea. Do you think any of those traitors in DC give a shit about whichever groups they will infantilize as helpless dependents? Do you think they care if YOUR money is debased by half so that they can play the hero showering their constituents with gifts? By my estimation they're all multimillionaires after a term or two (if they weren't already going into it) and will live like royalty regardless of the consequences of their actions.


How about this. I concede, you guys are right, republicans are just a bunch of straight white men who are all toothless inbred welfare leeches and they should be grateful that all those high functioning democrats go that extra mile with charity to keep them all alive. Congrats, your team won. You and Rob can throw yourselves a victory party.

 

[Jimi77]

So all the money spent to staff and operate those bases just instantly vanishes out of the state or is forever trapped in a black hole never leaving the base? Have you never been in an area with a military base? They literally are the entire economy of the region and the effect is much more dramatic in remote/rural areas. Again I ask, are you really this stupid or are you being intentionally deceitful?

The money that goes to military bases is part of the Federal Budget, not the state budget, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up, afterall this is a discussion about state budgets.