Interesting article and well written as both sides can read it as favoring them.
The Republicans looks to the State count, 37 out of 50. The Democrats look to electoral votes; 54 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the lowest approval rating and 159 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the highest approval rating.
It doesn't look like either side has a lock at this point.
All well and good. But as long as California, New York and few other wildly blind liberal progressive bankrupt states are pro-Obama then he still could win.
It is interesting that those states you call liberal, progressive, bankrupt, California and New York send the Federal government $7+ Billion and $8+ Billion annually while so called conservative states take more money from the Federal government than they give, e.g., South Carolina takes $3+ Billion, MS $6+ Billion, AK $7+ Billion. The arguments touted by politicians in these so called conservative states would be much more persuasive if their states did not require federal subsidies to sustain their economies.
Ken;
States with large military or Federal labs (typically in the South and West) appear to get more in Federal dollars. Large urban areas receive substantially more federal funds in the form of social welfare spending, as do minority-heavy rural areas particularly in the South. Large, urban states pay more in than they get back although it's unclear whether the larger outlow derives from red- or blue-minded taxpayers in those urban blue states (eg Wall Street in NY).
Why are large military bases and Federal labs typically located in the South or West? I can understand why DC, Maryland, and Virginia spend more federal dollars than they produce in tax revenue but not MS, SC, and AK.
There are more miles of coast line requiring defense in CA than in SC and MS combined. As for commerce, the NY harbor is as important to trade as the Mississippi river. So the only reason for locating military bases and federal labs in SC and MS is to support the economy of these poor states. NY and CA are bankrupt because they have been subsidizing SC, MS, AK, etc. ... and ND why does is it a net consumer of Federal dollars? Are you worried that Canada will attack us?
When politicians from states on the Federal dole complain about Federal spending in states that are net contributors to the Federal government, they sound selfish and arrogant. Perhaps they should remove the beam from their eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's.
Ken the locations of many of the military bases is based on population densities.
Especially in the case of military aircraft and mechinized forces. They need large underpopulated areas to train in. You get a lot of complaints from residences in urban areas due to low flying, fast fighter and attack aircraft.
The naval bases are of course based in areas with good port facilities but even then, much of the navy's on shore training is done away from heavily populated areas. The problem we currently have and have had for many years is that we maintain too many military facilities. There have been a couple of tries to reduce the number of bases with varying degrees of sucess but people in Congress from both sides of the political aisle force the military to keep them open to help the local economies.
As far as why individual states are broke, is due to the same reason our country is heavily in debt, long term spending and overly optomistic estimates of income. We need to demand that our leaders run our government the same way successful people run their economic lives. Never get yourself into a situation that your worst case planning didn't take into account. Hence you may be able to afford to live in a 6000 square foot house but you choose to live in 3000 square foot house b...
Ken the locations of many of the military bases is based on population densities.
Especially in the case of military aircraft and mechinized forces. They need large underpopulated areas to train in. You get a lot of complaints from residences in urban areas due to low flying, fast fighter and attack aircraft.
The naval bases are of course based in areas with good port facilities but even then, much of the navy's on shore training is done away from heavily populated areas. The problem we currently have and have had for many years is that we maintain too many military facilities. There have been a couple of tries to reduce the number of bases with varying degrees of sucess but people in Congress from both sides of the political aisle force the military to keep them open to help the local economies.
As far as why individual states are broke, is due to the same reason our country is heavily in debt, long term spending and overly optomistic estimates of income. We need to demand that our leaders run our government the same way successful people run their economic lives. Never get yourself into a situation that your worst case planning didn't take into account. Hence you may be able to afford to live in a 6000 square foot house but you choose to live in 3000 square foot house because if things turn sour, you have financially planned for that.
Careful, conservative, financial planning can allow even people of average incomes to accumulate impressive amounts of savings or worse case survive financial disasters without loosing their accumulated nesscesities such as homes.
That is in essence what has happened to many states and cities. When your financial planning is poor and your run your budgets on a knife edge, in economic downturns, you are going to get cut.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion. For a thief to suggest that financial problems of his victim are due to poor financial planning is ludicrous.
Here are the facts that lead me to conclude that much of the self righteousness from conservative states is BS..... In 2007, CA sent over $50 billion to Washington; NY sent over $85 Billion to Washington; amounts which make the state budget deficits look trivial. Sorry I can't list actual deficit amounts because balanced budget rules make these numbers elusive but we know CA was wrestling with deficits in the $10 billion range and New York with deficits in the $3 Billion range. .... In 2007, Alaska received over $5 Billion from Washington which makes its budget surplus of less than $400 Million seem pretty trivial. South Carolina received over $17 Billion from Washington making its budget surplus of less than $300 million seem trivial as well....I could continue with such examples but you get the point.
The fed gov has grown way out of its Constitutional bounds, that any State is sending those amounts of money to the feds is a disgrace, the American people and their States need to starve that ravenous fed beast near to death.
Ken, you have a lot of information about what states get what but please consider that irregardless of who gets what our problem is poor planning and overspending from the federal government on down.
Simply redistributing what is essentually borrowed money isn't going to resolve our situation. Increasing taxes, especially the suggested tax increases proposed by the President, even if inacted will bring in proportion a tiny amount compared to our spending.
We must acknowledge the problem. It isn't lack of revenue because we could inact massive tax increases that would devistate the economy and still not close our spending defceit.
In any case I appreciate the civil, interesting converstaion!
Any state spending more Federal Dollars than it pays in taxes is contributing to the Federal Deficit. Any state paying in taxes than it receives in Federal benefits is contributing to eliminating the Federal Deficit. California and New York pay significantly more in taxes than they receive in Federal Spending while South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alaska receive significantly more in Federal spending than they pay in taxes. .... so "California, New York and few other wildly blind liberal progressive bankrupt states" are reducing the federal deficit while South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alaska are increasing the federal deficit. ... so increasing spending in NY and CA is justified as is increasing taxes on SC, MS, and AK.
Until those states responsible for the deficit, SC, MS, AK, et. al. acknowledge their responsibility and are willing to pay their fair share, I don't expect a balanced federal budget. Of course states with poor economic policy and poor financial planning like SC, MS, AK, et. al., need federal assistance to keep their economies vibrant while states like Ca and NY who are supporting these states are going bankrupt. .... don't forget if you kill the goose which laid the golden egg, everyone will be worse off.
Perhaps when we stop distributing money from "California, New York and few other wildly blind liberal progressive bankrupt states" to poor conservative states who claim fiscal prudence, this country will finally understand what poor planning means....poor planning is failing to provide adequate education, failing to build adequate infrastructure, and in other ways borrowing from the future. Poor financial planning is cutting government spending when the economy is in a tail spin and you have hundreds of idle workers.....poor planning is increasing the government deficit when you have near full employment by cutting taxes and going to war both of which increase the demand for labor.
Right now it appears to me the party incapable of sound financial planning is the Republicans.
I think, due to his admin's war on MMJ, CA is not going to go for Obama, but they likely won't go for Romney, either. Now if Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination EVERY MMJ State will choose him and Obama will be up the proverbial defecation waterway without a means of propulsion..
Well, after all, it is "The Truth." LOL But, seriously, it sickens me that the libtard media is never called to the carpet for all the "liberties" that they seem to take when covering up for Odumba.
You didn't read that article very closely did you? It was really written carefully to permit both the Republicans and Democrats to read it as favoring them.
The Republicans read the article and focus on the State count, 37 out of 50. The Democrats read the article and focus on electoral votes; 54 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the lowest approval rating and 159 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the highest approval rating.
It doesn't look like either side has a lock at this point.
Your case sounds like Ron Paul's case. There will be no 'pulling a rabbit out of the hat' for obaaaama in this election. Leftwing media said that there was nothing to the Tea Party Majority right before the 2010 referendum. If we all show up for this election it will be a landslide defeat for obaaaama.
The Republicans looks to the State count, 37 out of 50. The Democrats look to electoral votes; 54 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the lowest approval rating and 159 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the highest approval rating.
It doesn't look like either side has a lock at this point.
States with large military or Federal labs (typically in the South and West) appear to get more in Federal dollars. Large urban areas receive substantially more federal funds in the form of social welfare spending, as do minority-heavy rural areas particularly in the South. Large, urban states pay more in than they get back although it's unclear whether the larger outlow derives from red- or blue-minded taxpayers in those urban blue states (eg Wall Street in NY).
There are more miles of coast line requiring defense in CA than in SC and MS combined. As for commerce, the NY harbor is as important to trade as the Mississippi river. So the only reason for locating military bases and federal labs in SC and MS is to support the economy of these poor states. NY and CA are bankrupt because they have been subsidizing SC, MS, AK, etc. ... and ND why does is it a net consumer of Federal dollars? Are you worried that Canada will attack us?
When politicians from states on the Federal dole complain about Federal spending in states that are net contributors to the Federal government, they sound selfish and arrogant. Perhaps they should remove the beam from their eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's.
Especially in the case of military aircraft and mechinized forces. They need large underpopulated areas to train in. You get a lot of complaints from residences in urban areas due to low flying, fast fighter and attack aircraft.
The naval bases are of course based in areas with good port facilities but even then, much of the navy's on shore training is done away from heavily populated areas. The problem we currently have and have had for many years is that we maintain too many military facilities. There have been a couple of tries to reduce the number of bases with varying degrees of sucess but people in Congress from both sides of the political aisle force the military to keep them open to help the local economies.
As far as why individual states are broke, is due to the same reason our country is heavily in debt, long term spending and overly optomistic estimates of income. We need to demand that our leaders run our government the same way successful people run their economic lives. Never get yourself into a situation that your worst case planning didn't take into account. Hence you may be able to afford to live in a 6000 square foot house but you choose to live in 3000 square foot house b...
Especially in the case of military aircraft and mechinized forces. They need large underpopulated areas to train in. You get a lot of complaints from residences in urban areas due to low flying, fast fighter and attack aircraft.
The naval bases are of course based in areas with good port facilities but even then, much of the navy's on shore training is done away from heavily populated areas. The problem we currently have and have had for many years is that we maintain too many military facilities. There have been a couple of tries to reduce the number of bases with varying degrees of sucess but people in Congress from both sides of the political aisle force the military to keep them open to help the local economies.
As far as why individual states are broke, is due to the same reason our country is heavily in debt, long term spending and overly optomistic estimates of income. We need to demand that our leaders run our government the same way successful people run their economic lives. Never get yourself into a situation that your worst case planning didn't take into account. Hence you may be able to afford to live in a 6000 square foot house but you choose to live in 3000 square foot house because if things turn sour, you have financially planned for that.
Careful, conservative, financial planning can allow even people of average incomes to accumulate impressive amounts of savings or worse case survive financial disasters without loosing their accumulated nesscesities such as homes.
That is in essence what has happened to many states and cities. When your financial planning is poor and your run your budgets on a knife edge, in economic downturns, you are going to get cut.
Here are the facts that lead me to conclude that much of the self righteousness from conservative states is BS..... In 2007, CA sent over $50 billion to Washington; NY sent over $85 Billion to Washington; amounts which make the state budget deficits look trivial. Sorry I can't list actual deficit amounts because balanced budget rules make these numbers elusive but we know CA was wrestling with deficits in the $10 billion range and New York with deficits in the $3 Billion range. .... In 2007, Alaska received over $5 Billion from Washington which makes its budget surplus of less than $400 Million seem pretty trivial. South Carolina received over $17 Billion from Washington making its budget surplus of less than $300 million seem trivial as well....I could continue with such examples but you get the point.
Simply redistributing what is essentually borrowed money isn't going to resolve our situation. Increasing taxes, especially the suggested tax increases proposed by the President, even if inacted will bring in proportion a tiny amount compared to our spending.
We must acknowledge the problem. It isn't lack of revenue because we could inact massive tax increases that would devistate the economy and still not close our spending defceit.
In any case I appreciate the civil, interesting converstaion!
Until those states responsible for the deficit, SC, MS, AK, et. al. acknowledge their responsibility and are willing to pay their fair share, I don't expect a balanced federal budget. Of course states with poor economic policy and poor financial planning like SC, MS, AK, et. al., need federal assistance to keep their economies vibrant while states like Ca and NY who are supporting these states are going bankrupt. .... don't forget if you kill the goose which laid the golden egg, everyone will be worse off.
Right now it appears to me the party incapable of sound financial planning is the Republicans.
But, seriously, it sickens me that the libtard media is never called to the carpet for all the "liberties" that they seem to take when covering up for Odumba.
The Republicans read the article and focus on the State count, 37 out of 50. The Democrats read the article and focus on electoral votes; 54 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the lowest approval rating and 159 electoral votes in the 10 states where Obama has the highest approval rating.
It doesn't look like either side has a lock at this point.