Reply With Quote
You need to look at those tables closer if you don't see the total. I do.
They are also the second largest in population. And this is relevant why?
Just admit you got caught using flaky logic/data trying to prove a point that clearly wasn't true and move on.
You need to look at those tables closer if you don't see the total. I do.
After running through that list of states I dont see anyone else touching Texas' earnings. Correct me if Im wrong
No, the data is not that granular. But it doesn't matter in the end analysis. Every taxpayer was eligible for a stimulus check. Wouldn't the state with one of the largest populations recieve the most stimulus checks?
Don't you see that the correlation between population and aid is incredibly strong... it almost approaches unity.
I already posted the categorical breakdown asswipe.
http://www.nemw.org/images/fedspend2rank.pdf
Yes it is. It's also factually correct that Texas is among the states receiving the most money during the Obama presidency. So now what?
Cite a table with the composite totals then. I don't see one.
It is relevant because the money goes to the state treasury, not individual citizen's pockets.
Just admit that Texas was a top 3 federal money getter during the Bush Jr years and move on.
Now we can say that your claim that Texas was in the bottom-half was actually inaccurate.
Just admit that the reason Texas was a top 3 federal money getter was directly relative to it's ranking as the #2 pop. state in the nation.
You are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
EPIC FAIL
No, it was just as "Factually" correct as your statement. Texas was in the bottom-half, per capita, of received funding.
The link I posted was specific to defense indutry. Texas sits atop tha list in earnings, even though it didnt have as many contractors as some other states.
He didn't say per-capita.
Isn't that what matters?
Christ, Texas is the second most populous state!
I don't thin one party ruined the economy. Any argument with that premise is almost certainly wrong.
I will say this, the GOP needs to acknowledge tax increases are necessary to get us out from underneath the debt we have. If they will not acknowledge that then they obviously are not serious about solving it as a problem.
You didn't say composite totals either. Both are implied. That's why you have to agree on a metric before you get into a pissing match.
You guys are almost admitting that every state is on the take nearly equally.
That makes this measurement all but useless.
Page 1 for 2008. Very first column.
Agreed. If there was a single fiscal conservative among them, it would go much easier.
You could say the same about Democrats and spending.
The list I posted was ALL Federal procurement contracts which is the relevant number to use.
Texas is 2nd in size, 2nd in population and 6th in Federal Procurement.
Why is this an issue with you?
Sure. But those checks didn't go to the state. They were issued by the IRS directly to individuals.
Did I ever say that there was no correlation?
I agree with Manny on this.
I think there are Democrats who are willing to cut spending and raise tax rates but I'm not so sure any member of the GOP is willing to raise taxes at this time.
Now, that being said, I completely agree that Democrats will need to find ways to cut spending.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
