What is?

[hispls]

The money that goes to military bases is part of the Federal Budget, not the state budget

Because it all just either leaves the state instantly or never leaves the confines of the base itself and has zero impact on local and state economies.

Why are you even continuing to reply in bad faith. I've already conceded your victory, "your team" is the high earning crusaders who's charity keeps "the other team" going while they continually "vote against their own best interest. That's it, you and Rob won. Go throw yourself a party you disingenuous simpleton.

 

[RobGMN]

Because it all just either leaves the state instantly or never leaves the confines of the base itself and has zero impact on local and state economies.

Why are you even continuing to reply in bad faith. I've already conceded your victory, "your team" is the high earning crusaders who's charity keeps "the other team" going while they continually "vote against their own best interest. That's it, you and Rob won. Go throw yourself a party you disingenuous simpleton.

WTF are you talking about? THE FEDERAL FUNDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT FLOW FROM BLUE STATES TO RED STATES DO NOT INCLUDE MILITARY FUNDING. INDIVIDUAL STATES DO NOT FOOT THE BILL FOR MILITARY BASES WITHIN THE STATE. IF A STATE SPENDS MONEY ON INFRASTRUCTURE, IT IS BECASUE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IT WILL RESULT IN A NET GAIN FOR THE STATE.

If anything, any small amount of money that moves into the state economy as a result of that base (servicemembers spending their income locally, minor purchases made for base operation) would only HELP the state, not cause them to be more reliant on the funds flowing from the blue states.

You are simply barking up the wrong trees in trying to justify the imbalance by blaming federally-owned/operated military bases or state highways for it.
Your attempt to use false "facts" to prove your point is a GREAT example of "bad faith" in the discussion.
Try looking to factual information and legitimate possible causes for the irrefutable fact that the imbalance of red states being takers exists.

 

[RobGMN]

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.

None of this speaks to the flow of funds we describe. If the Navy decided to build ships in the middle of the Arizona desert and had to pay private contractors to do so, that money would not be considered as part of the flow of funds we are discussing. Just like military bases, that money is part of federal military spending, not money given to a state by the federal government in excess of the money that state gives the federal gov't in the form of taxes.

Stop trying to introduce strawmen or red herrings as part of your argument. If you simply do not understand basic economics, then maybe this discussion is not for you?

 

[Jimi77]

Because it all just either leaves the state instantly or never leaves the confines of the base itself and has zero impact on local and state economies.

Why are you even continuing to reply in bad faith. I've already conceded your victory, "your team" is the high earning crusaders who's charity keeps "the other team" going while they continually "vote against their own best interest. That's it, you and Rob won. Go throw yourself a party you disingenuous simpleton.

I didn't reply in bad faith and I don't see the need for the insults. Obviously you haven't read many of my posts if you think I'm on Sleepy Joe's team.

Having served in the military, I've seen firsthand how military bases significantly impact local economies to the point that many small towns would cease to exist without them.

However, we were involved in a discussion about how federal tax dollars flow tend to flow from blue to red states. Since military bases are in the federal budget, I'm still confused as to why you keep bringing them up.

I never portrayed the blue states as some sort of crusaders or being charitable. The only thing I've said is the blue states are the ones "footing the bill" so to speak and the red state politicians always seem to be there with hat in hand despite their rhetoric.

 

[Jimi77]

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.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, why are flying off the handle? Why are you defending hypocritical actions of the red state politicians? You claim "you mouth breathers so emotionally invested," yet you're the one hurling insults; perhaps you're the one who is "so emotionally invested."

I have never said nor implied republicans are welfare leeches, inbreed, or exclusively straight or white. I see no reason to insult my intelligence or claim that I'm so emotionally invested in my "team" to see reality for what it is.

I agree for the most part, Congress is a bunch of rich well connected folks who could give a shyt what the consequences of their actions and policies are as long they remain rich and in power.

 

[Jimi77]

Plenty of idiocy to go around. There really should be some sort of IQ test or screening process to vote. To quote George Carlin, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

 

[hispls]

THE FEDERAL FUNDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT FLOW FROM BLUE STATES TO RED STATES DO NOT INCLUDE MILITARY FUNDING.

Because the 1.73 TRILLION in defense spending doesn't come from the general fund and certainly isn't injected into various state and local economies.

Just like military bases, that money is part of federal military spending, not money given to a state by the federal government

So all that military spending doesn't effect local and state economies?

strawmen or red herrings

1.73 TRILLION dollars is hardly a strawman or red herring. It is a significant portion of federal funds which ends up effecting economies of the several states

Since military bases are in the federal budget, I'm still confused as to why you keep bringing them up.

And yet the federal money that flows into them is not counted in all those "red states are hypocritical welfare leeches" clickbait articles that circulate every year.

Why is it that when I look at the top 10 defense spending states it's the "net givers" yet we don't count that as federal spending in those clickbait articles? Connecticut, for example, is the best ranked "net giver" yet the defense spending in that state is nearly 10% of their GDP whereas defense spending in Arkansas is only 1.2% of their GDP?

Don't try to convince anybody you guys are here to have a good faith discussion on the source and destination (and impact) of federal funds and taxation when you're so willing to just dismiss or ignore a full third of federal spending. What really is your agenda here?

 

[RobGMN]

Because the 1.73 TRILLION in defense spending doesn't come from the general fund and certainly isn't injected into various state and local economies.

If anything, any of that money that gets "injected" into a local economy would HELP the local economy and make them LESS DEPENDENT on federal funding. If Kentucky had a massive military base paid for by the government and all the servicemembers spent their money there, they would be LESS dependent on government funds to survive. Your argument is backwards.

So all that military spending doesn't effect local and state economies?

It certainly can Affect them, but in a positive way. Much in the way tourism affects most local economies in a positive way. Tourists take the money they earned elsewhere, and "inject" it into a local economy that would not have seen the money otherwise.
Basic economics.

1.73 TRILLION dollars is hardly a strawman or red herring. It is a significant portion of federal funds which ends up effecting economies of the several states

Again, only in a positve way. Local economies are not funding military bases. Those bases are owned operated by and paid for by the federal government. Directly. Not through federal funds given to states.

And yet the federal money that flows into them is not counted in all those "red states are hypocritical welfare leeches" clickbait articles that circulate every year.

The US Gov't doesn't operate a clickbait website. Go look at the numbers directly from the US Gov't Websites if you think the numbers Jimi and I have referenced are faked in some way.

Why is it that when I look at the top 10 defense spending states it's the "net givers" yet we don't count that as federal spending in those clickbait articles? Connecticut, for example, is the best ranked "net giver" yet the defense spending in that state is nearly 10% of their GDP whereas defense spending in Arkansas is only 1.2% of their GDP?

That would be a question of why the funding goes where. Both states have roughly the same population numbers. Connecticut is 1/10 the size of Arkansas. Why would the government choose to spend money in CT that they are not spending in AR? Is it the businesses that exist in either location that are able to actually take on a contract?
it was kinf of like Cheney and the Halliburton "scandal". Uhhh, Halliburton was the only contractor capable of doing the job.
It's kind of like the USPS. The US Gov't is the only entity big enough to do the job.
So...why is Arkansas not capable of accepting and fulfilling DOD contracts?

Alabama is ranked #14 on the "taker/giver states" list, but defense spending as a share of their GDP is 6.1 vs Connecticut's 6.2 (not 10%, per this gov't report: https://oldcc.gov/dsbs-fy2021). Connecticut is ranked #31 on the list of states.
If DOD spending is the culprit, then what is Alabama doing wrong?

Don't try to convince anybody you guys are here to have a good faith discussion on the source and destination (and impact) of federal funds and taxation when you're so willing to just dismiss or ignore a full third of federal spending. What really is your agenda here?

I don't consider finances to be "faith-based", and I don't consider hypocrisy acceptable.
If part of a political platform is being against assistance, then any state that is Republican or Red should not be a taker state. All the BS memes and posts across the 'net about how Democrats are always taking the money, yet it's the red states that are the biggest takers and the blue states that are the biggest givers.
'Kind of like one of the other tenets of Conservapubs: strong family values and faith-based living. Meanwhile, guess which states have the highest rates of teen unwed pregnancies and the highest infant mortalities?
If someone is going to talk the talk, then they damn sure should walk the walk.

 

[Jimi77]

Because the 1.73 TRILLION in defense spending doesn't come from the general fund and certainly isn't injected into various state and local economies.


So all that military spending doesn't effect local and state economies?



1.73 TRILLION dollars is hardly a strawman or red herring. It is a significant portion of federal funds which ends up effecting economies of the several states

And yet the federal money that flows into them is not counted in all those "red states are hypocritical welfare leeches" clickbait articles that circulate every year.

Why is it that when I look at the top 10 defense spending states it's the "net givers" yet we don't count that as federal spending in those clickbait articles? Connecticut, for example, is the best ranked "net giver" yet the defense spending in that state is nearly 10% of their GDP whereas defense spending in Arkansas is only 1.2% of their GDP?

Don't try to convince anybody you guys are here to have a good faith discussion on the source and destination (and impact) of federal funds and taxation when you're so willing to just dismiss or ignore a full third of federal spending. What really is your agenda here?

So you're saying because a lot of federal defense dollars go to California (for example) that California isn't as "Charitable" as they might otherwise seem. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Instead you hurled insults, claimed we're disingenuous and that we called red states "welfare leeches"

To your point about military spending, I would say 3 things. I expect costal states to get a bigger chunk of defense dollars because they have a coast to defend, that's were shipyards and ports are, etc. The second point I would bring up is that those blue states aren't the ones pitching a fit about wealth transfer, taxes, gov't spending, federal programs, etc. IOW, there seems to be congruency with what the blue states say and what they do. Third, defense spending is for the common good of all the states; I'd be pissed if Alabama was getting the type of military spending that Hawaii or Florida gets.

And from several posts ago, you asked why SS & Medicaid dollars are going into a state budget. SS disability payments are decided by and distributed by the state. The Fed cuts the state a big check, the state then decides who does or doesn't qualify for disability payments and then cuts checks to individual citizens. Medicaid is managed in a similar fashion.

USAspending.gov breaks down spending by both county and congressional district and we can see that this pattern of money flowing from blue to red continues regardless of how you break it down.

 

[Buck]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636178800311517188

 

[Buck]

Privacy? What’s that?

CDC Bought Phone Data To Monitor Americans' Compliance With Lockdowns, Contracts Show | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Eggs]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636061342900559876

 

[Eggs]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636159977147572224

 

[Jimi77]

Privacy? What’s that?

Gone.

 

[RobGMN]

Privacy? What’s that?

CDC Bought Phone Data To Monitor Americans' Compliance With Lockdowns, Contracts Show | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

You give up privacy when you sign the contract.