Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Archives > FOFC Archive
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-27-2004, 03:25 PM   #1
albionmoonlight
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
Is YOUR STATE getting the federal pork spending that it deserves?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxi...ingupdate.html

This is a report showing how much federal money states receive relative to the federal taxes that they pay.

albionmoonlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 05:25 PM   #2
sooner333
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Norman, OK
We're getting a lot in Oklahoma...quite frankly, that needs to stop. I'm tired of pork spending and that's why I endorse Tom Coburn for Senate in Oklahoma.
sooner333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 05:27 PM   #3
Sharpieman
Greatly Missed. (7/11/84-06/12/05)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Palo Alto, CA
What the hell does Mississippi have to spend so much money on?
__________________
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Sharpieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 05:41 PM   #4
Raven Hawk
College Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Thunderdome
Mississippi? How about North Dakota? They can't spend that much money on trying to censor The Afoci, can they?
__________________
Owner of The Shreveport Pride in The CFL
Raven Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 05:45 PM   #5
MrBug708
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Whittier
California has gone down, but we haven't been on the good side of Republicans for a while
MrBug708 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 06:19 PM   #6
Masked
College Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bay Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpieman
What the hell does Mississippi have to spend so much money on?
It explains it in the article. States with lower per capita income rank higher due to the progressive income tax.

Last edited by Masked : 09-27-2004 at 07:28 PM.
Masked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 07:26 PM   #7
sabotai
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
New Jersey is dead last....*looks around the state*.....yup, sounds about right.
sabotai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 07:49 PM   #8
JPhillips
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
It does blow up the conventional wisdom that Dem voters are living off the federal tit. Take out D.C. and eight of the top nine states are Red.
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 07:59 PM   #9
Abe Sargent
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Catonsville, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
It does blow up the conventional wisdom that Dem voters are living off the federal tit. Take out D.C. and eight of the top nine states are Red.

Absolutly true. However, there are a large number of reasons for this, so let's not introduce a spurious relationship. Conservative states tend to be rural. Rural areas tend to have higher unemployment, infrastructure issues, lower income, and so forth. All of those factors lead to, arguably, more federal spending per tax dollar than for other states.

Frankly, there should be inequities in the system if it worked perfectly. If I built an interstate stretching directly from DC to San Francisco, in some states, it would cost more to build, due to geography. In some states, the interstate would appear to be more or less per tax dollar based on the econony of the state. States with worse economies appear on this chart closer to the top, which makes sense.

-Anxiety
__________________
Check out my two current weekly Magic columns!

https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent
Abe Sargent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 08:15 PM   #10
Leonidas
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Anglia
Kinda blows the theory that Dubya is playing favorites with his brother in Florida.
__________________
Molon labe
Leonidas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 08:43 PM   #11
Ryche
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
Generally the biggest factor in who gets the pork is where the military bases are located. Nevada is definitely an exception to that. Of course, I doubt they include spending on Area 51.
__________________
Some knots are better left untied.
Ryche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 08:44 PM   #12
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Yeah, but Jersey has plenty of bases, but yet is dead last. I love how every politician who runs in Jersey for national office says that he'll get our money back because we pay more than we take... but they never do .
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 08:50 PM   #13
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonidas
Kinda blows the theory that Dubya is playing favorites with his brother in Florida.

Dubya is a member of Congress? Hmmm...
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 09:02 PM   #14
JPhillips
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Anxiety: Of course there are multiple reasons for the disparities. What I find interesting is that the myth of Dems wanting more from the government than they pay isn't born out. Of course if you look at the way this congress has spent like drunken sailors, you would know that its a bunch of bulls$#*. At the end of the day both parties are more than willing to spend other people's money.
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 09:08 PM   #15
sooner333
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Norman, OK
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
Anxiety: Of course there are multiple reasons for the disparities. What I find interesting is that the myth of Dems wanting more from the government than they pay isn't born out. Of course if you look at the way this congress has spent like drunken sailors, you would know that its a bunch of bulls$#*. At the end of the day both parties are more than willing to spend other people's money.

Notice that whenever this Republican Congress passes a bill, usually its the Democrats that complain more wasn't done...usually that means more spending.
sooner333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 09:27 PM   #16
JPhillips
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Sooner: Only in some instances. There have been plenty of spending bills, notably ag. subsidies and the highway bill, that the Repubs added billions in giveaways to. They have also been quite prolific at "targeted" taxcuts for corporate friends that make no economic sense, but payback donors. Just look at the mess that the corporate tax bill coming up is. It got so overloaded that the Repubs moved billions from it to the middle-class bill that just passed.

As the Cato Institute said, I'd say they spend like drunken sailors, but that gives drunken sailors a bad name.
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 09:50 PM   #17
sooner333
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Norman, OK
Oh, I agree its a problem both sides have...that's for sure. I'm just saying that it's not like it would be better if Democrats were in power, in fact, it could be a lot worse. Anyway, I'm tired of seeing money just being used as bribes to get votes. When Tom Coburn was in the house, he was offered highway money for his district in exchange for a vote...he declined the funding. I believe he voted for the bill anyway, he just declined the money on principle. Anyway, for more on his cost cutting, go here http://www.coburnforsenate.com/feder...citsdebt.shtml .
sooner333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2004, 10:10 PM   #18
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Every Sunday in our paper, the present an issue, give a writeup and bullet-list the candidates' views on that particular issue. More times than not, they are very similar. In yesterday's paper, it was on Budget Deficit. Two points came out.

1) Congress (as it has always done) does whatever it damn well wants to in regards to crafting, negotiating and finalizing a budget. In other words, declare the president's budget DOA and then re-do it in the various committees.

2) Both candidates, through their spoken views and platforms, will not have any positive effect on the budget deficit. In other words, what they have "promised" will cost more and more money, which Congress will be glad to spend.

Do this country a favor - don't vote for either presidential candidate and don't vote for any of the f-ing incumbents in Congress. Keep recycling them until we get a critical mass of representatives that truly have the balls (or ovaries) to cut spending. Please.
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2004, 01:13 AM   #19
haji1
Mascot
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
South Dakota is in the top 10, which does not surprise me. That is why Daschle and Johnson keep getting elected. A lot of people here aren't happy with them and would love to see John Thune in office, but they are afraid that we would actually get the amount of money that we deserve. We like our pork here. South Dakotans are not about to vote their gift horses out.
haji1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.