Say a prayer.....

[TerpEagle]

“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents,” Obama said in Fargo, N.D. “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” Barak Obama

So when did you start caring about deficit spending? Was it when revenue was reduced through tax breaks while wars were being waged?

[Eagle Road]

The only reason you think I proved your point is because you picked part of my argument and ignored the rest.

If NY and NJ were allowed to keep more of what they paid in, the numerous states that typically face more of these weather disasters (Gulf Coast and Tornado Alley) would have to increase their revenue or overall require less government spending. They'd then have even less to handle the disasters.

This country is a union, not 50 separate entities. The purpose of the union is to share prosperity as well as risk and burden. It's just ironic though, that when the states the have a bit more prosperity need help from time to time the ones that pose more financial risk and burden don't feel so generous.

I didn't realize we had an argument, I see your facts, not disputing them, (however I would rather see a chart for ALL of the years 1977 to 2012 rather than a couple of "cherry picked" ones).

I can not speak for the other states, as I have not researched them, but Kansas is virtually a sum zero state, also if you look into it, I would bet that a lot of the money in Kansas goes to AG related subsidizing, not something that I am a big fan of.

I would also expect N.Y. to be a donor state, it IS a large state with one of the highest tax paying populations, on the other extreme is D.C. which receives back 6.08 on every dollar they pay in, so basically, the graph shows that the Capital of the country is poorer and needs more help than your examples?



However, the first thing I noticed in the Tax Foundation study’s charts is that the federal government itself spends a lot on overhead. The richest counties in America used to be the northern suburbs of Detroit, where the auto executives lived back in the glory days of the U.S. auto industry.

Now, the counties with the highest incomes are the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Even Santa Clara County, home to California’s computer and Internet billionaires and the highest-income county in our state, didn’t come close to the top.

So, Americans’ tax money doesn’t just go to Washington, then get dispersed to the 50 states. A lot of the tax money stays in D.C. In 2005, the District of Columbia got back $6.08 for every $1 it sent in taxes to the federal government. Virginia got back $1.51 and Maryland, $1.30.

[TerpEagle]

“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents,” Obama said in Fargo, N.D. “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” Barak Obama

Also, the deficit is actually falling. It's not a surplus so the debt continues to increase (as is has for nearly every administration since 1950).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...n-CBO-expected

Regardless of the political party, deficit spending is how this country operates. Reagan and Bush were huge proponents of it. I guess their supporters just didn't vocally care about it when they were running the show.

The debt was reduced slightly during the later Clinton years because the economy was strong enough to handle less spending/more revenue. When the Bush administration took over, they chose to forgo austerity in favor or more deficit spending.

The biggest issue is that the recession significantly hurt the GDP, making the deficit and debt more disproportionate. As the economy continues to grow, the worry over the deficit and debt will likely fade. Ideally, when the economy is strong the government will then apply austerity measures as they should have in the early 2000's but chose not to.

[Eagle Road]

Also, the deficit is actually falling. It's not a surplus so the debt continues to increase (as is has for nearly every administration since 1950).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...n-CBO-expected

Regardless of the political party, deficit spending is how this country operates. Reagan and Bush were huge proponents of it. I guess their supporters just didn't vocally care about it when they were running the show.

The debt was reduced slightly during the later Clinton years because the economy was strong enough to handle less spending/more revenue. When the Bush administration took over, they chose to forgo austerity in favor or more deficit spending.

The biggest issue is that the recession significantly hurt the GDP, making the deficit and debt more disproportionate. As the economy continues to grow, the worry over the deficit and debt will likely fade. Ideally, when the economy is strong the government will then apply austerity measures as they should have in the early 2000's but chose not to.

I'm not wanting to get into a he said, she said red/blue battle, but do you think the deficit is falling when the CURRENT value of the dollar is factored in?

[TerpEagle]

I'm not wanting to get into a he said, she said red/blue battle, but do you think the deficit is falling when the CURRENT value of the dollar is factored in?

Not just in dollars but as a fraction of the GDP it's falling according to that article and the CBO.

---
The federal budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates. Just three months ago, the CBO was forecasting a deficit of $845 billion for the 2013 fiscal year, which ends in September.

“Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year ... will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009,” the CBO said in releasing its new estimate Tuesday. The deficit peaked at 10.1 percent of gross domestic product then, but it's on track for 4 percent of GDP this year.
---

[TerpEagle]

For the people , especially the children in Oklahoma.

http://deadspin.com/wolf-blitzer-ask...than-509150402

[TerpEagle]

I didn't realize we had an argument, I see your facts, not disputing them, (however I would rather see a chart for ALL of the years 1977 to 2012 rather than a couple of "cherry picked" ones).

It's data from the last two decades. I didn't know that was much of a cherry pick. Blame the more economically conservative Economist for not delving further into the past when considering relevant federal aid to and from the states.

I can not speak for the other states, as I have not researched them, but Kansas is virtually a sum zero state, also if you look into it, I would bet that a lot of the money in Kansas goes to AG related subsidizing, not something that I am a big fan of.

While close to net zero, Kansas is still in the red. And per capita and with respect to their GDP, they, along with the other states mentioned fall far below in terms of net compared to New Jersey and New York.

I would also expect N.Y. to be a donor state, it IS a large state with one of the highest tax paying populations, on the other extreme is D.C. which receives back 6.08 on every dollar they pay in, so basically, the graph shows that the Capital of the country is poorer and needs more help than your examples?

However, the first thing I noticed in the Tax Foundation study’s charts is that the federal government itself spends a lot on overhead. The richest counties in America used to be the northern suburbs of Detroit, where the auto executives lived back in the glory days of the U.S. auto industry.

Now, the counties with the highest incomes are the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Even Santa Clara County, home to California’s computer and Internet billionaires and the highest-income county in our state, didn’t come close to the top.

So, Americans’ tax money doesn’t just go to Washington, then get dispersed to the 50 states. A lot of the tax money stays in D.C. In 2005, the District of Columbia got back $6.08 for every $1 it sent in taxes to the federal government. Virginia got back $1.51 and Maryland, $1.30.

DC, Maryland and Virginia net negative primarily because they house the federal government and many of the private contractors. Those numbers include salaries, wages and grants. Since most of the business performed by the federal government happens in this area, a lot of money is spent here.

I don't disagree that the government spends too much money but that's a larger point and I'd prefer is actual relief operations were conducted by state/local agencies.

However it's besides the point that representatives from states that get more than they give voted against funding disaster relief for two states have been effectively funding them for decades.

[CbEagle]

Thats exactly where I am coming from, those fuckers messed with peoples lives here for political purposes. They should both die ugly deaths, now we will take care of the people and the devastation in Moore we always look after each other.

[Eagle Road]

It's data from the last two decades. I didn't know that was much of a cherry pick. Blame the more economically conservative Economist for not delving further into the past when considering relevant federal aid to and from the states.



While close to net zero, Kansas is still in the red. And per capita and with respect to their GDP, they, along with the other states mentioned fall far below in terms of net compared to New Jersey and New York.



DC, Maryland and Virginia net negative primarily because they house the federal government and many of the private contractors. Those numbers include salaries, wages and grants. Since most of the business performed by the federal government happens in this area, a lot of money is spent here.

I don't disagree that the government spends too much money but that's a larger point and I'd prefer is actual relief operations were conducted by state/local agencies.

However it's besides the point that representatives from states that get more than they give voted against funding disaster relief for two states have been effectively funding them for decades.

TE, you have made your points, all good, and I can appreciate both sides of the issue, but my rant had less to do with politics and more to do with the waste that I encountered first hand, my opinion on those observations isn't going to change.

[TerpEagle]

TE, you have made your points, all good, and I can appreciate both sides of the issue, but my rant had less to do with politics and more to do with the waste that I encountered first hand, my opinion on those observations isn't going to change.

I've never been personally involved in disaster relief so I'll defer to your experience regarding how wasteful it can be. I don't doubt there is waste. I personally think that the execution of relief should be localized.

My issue is with the support or lack thereof of funding between states when a disaster occurs. I feel things do get political when that happens when they shouldn't be be because representatives decide to pander to their constituents(donors) rather than address the needs of their fellow citizens. Of course, that happens across the board in politics.