"wolf, use your intuitive intelligence"

My "intuitive intelligence" tells me that equating money flowing out of some states to the Feds with money flowing from the Feds to other states is fantastically simplistic.

So I asked for some facts to which to apply what intelligence I may have-- why do you seem to find that exasperating? Don't you find that examining others' views, and the bases for them, is worthwhile?

religiouslib:

wolf, use your intuitive intelligence.

there is a formula based on many different scenarios and that is how the feds come up with the amount issued to each state.

surprisingly, over the past 5 years texas has gotten the largest amount of fed aid, even as that crazy governor talks secession.

californias deficit was 26 billion.

Despite a Republican governor and many contributors who dole

out millions of dollars in national campaign contributions, California receives far less from Washington, D.C., in return for the taxes it puts in.

For every dollar the state sent to Washington in 2002, the most recent year comprehensive figures are available, it got back only 77 cents in total federal expenditures. That gap totals $58 billion and puts the state 45th out of the 50 in getting it's tax dollars, well behind Texas and Florida.

in other words, california would have twice the amount of its deficit if not for money going to red states.

The figures you quote aren't federal aid to the states. They are ALL federal dollars spent in the state including social security payments. So California would not have that money. Rather they would have some tax revenue from it.

Interesting.

And what do you suppose makes up the "every dollar the state sent to Washington?"

Hey I read the exchange it and it was fun, but really can't you admit that CA does pay more to the Feds then what they get and a state like Texas gets more than they pay in?

I have seen the stats and this is clear to me. Now I'm NOT buying into the notion the above is proof that Blue states are run better than Red states and all that other BS (that is a leap of logic and way to complex for a simple compare of cash flow), if that is your main point here than I agree with you, but man it is hard to see what you are really trying to say. Oh, well it was interesting all the same!

My post was regarding CITIES that continue to elect the same bankrupt leadership election after election and can't seem to understand that the same results ensue. DC is a prime example of the idiotic left-wing electing a crack head. Detroit’s mayor is all but a mobster, and it goes on.

While the payment imbalance drains funds from some states and pumps it into others, I don't know that it's a conspiracy to weaken, say CA. It's a result of many, many programs in which the Feds pick the winners and losers - just like they are doing now in the financial mess. These Federal payments have absolutely nothing to do with these cities being the mess they are. It's incompetent leadership from top to bottom. Look what a Mayor can do for a city when you get a good one. NYC got clean and healthy during Giuliani’s time in office and now Bloomberg is carrying on most of the policies. Before that, you had Democrats going back to ’46. But I’m sure you can find excuses for them and fault with Giuliani.

Consider this,

Illinois, a very "Blue" state, controlled by the Democrats, is billions of dollars in the hole, budget-wise. This is not just the result of a couple of years of unwise budgeting, it's the result, in large part, of endemic corruption. The corruption, and criminality generally, tend to be concentrated in the "Bluest" corner of the state. You might recognize the names of some federal officeholders who served political apprenticeships in Cook County.

I have no doubt that certain Illinois politicians now in Washington will be successful in funnelling large amounts of federal money to Illinois. Will that get the state out of the budgetary sh*thole that it's in? Probably not. As long as the Illinois Democrats are merely a front for the public employees unions, Illinois will remain problematic, both in terms of state budget, and political corruption.

And, Illinois is a rich state with an economy larger than several European countries, It shouldn't need federal money at all.

So warble on about the infant mortality rate in Utah, Blue Illinois is headed for bankruptcy.

Being a fiscal moderate \ con I agree with sound fiscal policy. If only the GOP was so interested in religion I could support them.

Thus local GOP pols that where religious issues don't dominate are welcome, but on the national level the Christian right has too much power and I have to reject what I feel are religious wackos. Not much different than rejecting the Taliban in my view.

when you're this retarded? you need to go play with blocks, and quite humiliating yourself in public.

Red States are ran into the dirt to the point they have to be subsidized by Blue States. if red states were ran better then wouldn't need welfare, they could pay their own way. but obviously conservatism fails because so many red states need welfare or would have been bankrupted long ago unable to generate revenue to be self supporting.

furthermore, if Cali didn;t have to support welfare red states their federal taxes could be drasatically cut, and make this state all the more stronger economically. but it has a parasite, red states, bleeding it dry year after year. then we get to listen to the right wing head up their ass crowd talk about how liberalism ran up a huge deficit in Cali. the fact is if cali didn't have to support republican parasitic welfare cases Cali had more then enough to cover their own.

now, even though this is quite simplistic to grasp, shove your head up your ass and ask me the dumbest question you can think of. like, "how is this relevant to cities"

Illinois, a very "Blue" state, controlled by the Democrats, is billions of dollars in the hole, budget-wise. This is not just the result of a couple of years of unwise budgeting, it's the result, in large part, of endemic corruption.

Really? I wouldn't instead have something to do with the fact that Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are all solidly in the rustbelt which has been losing jobs due to globalization.. nah...

Here’s the list Degs. The correlation is more blue than rust I think.

(1st on the poverty rate list) Detroit, MI hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
(2nd) Buffalo, NY hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
(3rd) Cincinnati, OH hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
(4th) Cleveland, OH hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
(5th) Miami, FL has never had a Republican mayor;
(6th) St. Louis, MO hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1949;
(7th) El Paso, TX has never had a Republican mayor;
(8th) Milwaukee, WI hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
(9th) Philadelphia, PA hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1952;
(10th) Newark, NJ hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
(11) No Republican held ANY office in Pittsburgh for 65 years until two were elected in 1995.