Reply With Quote
Bush and his cronies had ties to the defense and oil. It wasnt simply texas he was favoring.
Your defense of bush admin is misleading. You were the one that brought that out of nowhere.
I'm assuming you mean table #1. Page one doesn't have anything.
Ahhh..I got it. My bad. The first column is the aggregate of all of the tables. Doh! Man, that should be led.
Bush and his cronies had ties to the defense and oil. It wasnt simply texas he was favoring.
Your defense of bush admin is misleading. You were the one that brought that out of nowhere.
I disagree that they're implied. Ultimately, all he had to ask is what metric I was using before pulling the favoritism flag.
My original post had to do with Texas being regarded as a fiscal conservative state, when the state actually receives a load of federal money and still run a budget with deficits on it.
That's all.
Ok, so the fact that Texas received more aid during the Bush Presidency is a Non Sequitur. It's a meaningless stat.
Hey, Texas produced more mosquitoes in June than Colorado. Just as meaningful.
One thing, though: if you cut spending by $1 billion, you've improved the budget by $1 billion. It's fairly straightforward. But if you raise taxes by a certain amount, there's a great deal of uncertainty about what that will do to revenues.
I still disagree with what I percieve as the logic behind your premise. Whether Texas is or is not fiscally conservative, is irrlevant to the load of federal money. States with the largest pops get the most money. States with the largest pops have the largest budgets. That Texas has withstood what the other 2 largest states have endured for much longer, should imply something.
Right. It's kind of confusing, but it's there.
It's the Page 1 as marked on the do ent. Page 15 of the PDF.
Splitting hairs with El Nono makes me hungry. I gotta go eat.
Your reading comprehension CONTINUES to fail you.
ElNono brought up the Bush Favoritism. I simply proved he was a liar.
Since you clearly can't read charts I'll spell it out for you.
2008 breakdown of ALL federal spending per capita by state.
Retirement and disability payments: Texas ranks 47th
Direct Federal Grants: Texas ranks 36th
Federal Procurement: Texas ranks 6th
Federal Salaries and Wages: Texas ranks 25th
Overall ranking on spending per capita per state: 28th
Well, if somebody is going to wave the flag that Texas is the prime example of a 'fiscally conservative' state, then you would think they wouldn't need/want the percentage of federal aid they get. IE: They would rank lower even though their population is among the biggest.
Basically, a reverse-New York, who doesn't have as much population as Texas, but actually receives more money.
I'm eating as we speak..Splitting hairs with El Nono makes me hungry. I gotta go eat.
Thats not true. Lets say we cut our military budget by 1 billion. Now, that is going to mean some people lose their jobs and certain contracts don't get filled which has a chain reaction as well. So yes, you have 1 billion less in expenditures on your budget but then you will also recover less tax revenue due to a reduction in spending.
Money put into the economy by the government does not simply disappear.
Well, there is the little matter of Texas being #2 in population but receiving the 3rd largest portion. But, in the end, that's meaningless too as funding is often subject to the whims of elements outside of both the state and federal govt control. We've gotten a boat load of disaster funds in the last few years, which is part of that total. Disasters don't really figure into fiscal conservation.
I missed ElNono's arg, but if thats the case...he missed the point too. You both do. Bush relationship with Texas dont go to all contractors state wide, just the industries that he and many of his admin had ties to, and who reaped benefits from his policies while in office.
Damnit! I wanted you to buy!I'm eating as we speak..
you continuing to hammer on that bull data is comical as well...
gotta watch CC...he gets a little shifty sometimes...
True. And I have no problems with the fine folks in Texas. I actually have family there and I'm going to visit next month.Well, there is the little matter of Texas being #2 in population but receiving the 3rd largest portion. But, in the end, that's meaningless too as funding is often subject to the whims of elements outside of both the state and federal govt control. We've gotten a boat load of disaster funds in the last few years, which is part of that total. Disasters don't really figure into fiscal conservation.
But the state suffers from the same problems other states suffer as far as bloated budgets and deficits. Obviously Perry renting that residence he lives in doesn't help either. And it's a state that it's in a great condition to actually show other states how to do things right. They get plenty of federal funding, and it's chock full of conservatives (unlike Cali or NY).
Yeah, which was why I was saying it really waxes and wanes. Perry hasn't been much of a leader in that respect..and we certainly apportion our money poorly. To receive what we recieve and have one of the worst mental health programs in the nation is simply unforgiveable and is a good example of our legislatures' poor stewardship.
But goddamn, Perry sure has a nice pad.
So when you are confronted with data that clearly refutes the claims pulled straight from your hemorrhoid infested ass it becomes "bull " data?
I am telling you you are missing the point entirely, and the data you are hammering doesnt address the point at all
bush didnt favor texas he favored his business partners and his cronies business partners.
So your point is that politicians favor their cronies.
*gasp*
I am SO shocked and outraged!
How ing old are you?
It just sucks when "favoring the cronies" BANKRUPTS THE ING COUNTRY AT THE HAND OF UNNECESSARY WAR.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
