A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    Progressives endlessly talk about class, but the truth is there is but one identifiable elite ruling class in America ....the public sector...

    The question at the core of most of today’s debates in American politics is whether all people have an unalienable right to keep the fruits of their own labor—as the Founders believed and the Declaration of Independence (properly understood) asserts—or whether the government should funnel vast sums of money to the nation’s capital and then magnanimously redistribute it back to the tributaries.  Well, the stats are in, and it seems that neither of these two notions is really being fulfilled.  To be sure, Americans’ money is flowing to the nation’s capital.  But it’s not flowing back. 

    Indeed, the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., a city with little identifiable industrial output, dominates the Census Bureau’s newly updated list of America’s wealthiest counties.  Here are some highlights from that list:

    Based on the median family income in 2012, the wealthiest county in America—by far—is Arlington Co., Va., located just across the Potomac River from D.C.  In fact, Arlington’s median family income ($137,216) is more than $10,000 higher than that of any other county in the United States....

    The county with the 2nd-highest median family income ($127,192) is Loudoun Co., Va., also located in the D.C. metro area (according to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s list of metropolitan areas).  The 3rd-highest tally ($125,162) belongs to Howard Co., Md., which technically isn’t part of the D.C. metro area but is located between D.C. and Baltimore and is home to many people who commute to D.C.  The 4th-highest tally ($124,831) belongs to Fairfax Co., Va., yet another county located in the D.C. metro area. 

    In other words, in a nation that ranges from the Pacific to the Atlantic and boasts such grand and affluent cities as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Diego, Boston, and Seattle (among others), the four wealthiest counties in the land are all within commuting distance of the capital. 

    Is this what President Obama means by “fairness”? 

    And of course Americans are thrilled by all the wonderful services provided by these lardbutt DC bureaucrats ...especially the nonpartisan wonderful IRS...

     Decades of efforts to centralize and consolidate money and power in D.C. have, not surprisingly, made D.C. an unparalleled center of money and power. 

    About 175 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, referring to the unfortunate mindset of so many of “the ambitious and capable” in our society, wrote, “It is a waste of one’s time to want to prove to them that extreme centralization can be harmful to the state, since they centralize for themselves.” 

    The stats suggest he was right.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/river-american-money-flows-dc_756600.html?page=2

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    I used to go to D.C. All the time.  Weekly for a long time.  I hadn't been there in about a decade, when I went two years ago. There is one thing that was clear from that trip: there was no recession in D.C. , people in D.C., ie. government workers were living large, on our taxes.

    It was like a Leona Hemsley moment: resessions are for the little people.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    To be sure, Americans’ money is flowing to the nation’s capital.  But it’s not flowing back. 



    Unless you live in one of these states:

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

    Interesting. And how much money do you suppose these states sent to the Federal government in return for the magnanimous gift of their own money that was returned to them?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

     

    Interesting. And how much money do you suppose these states sent to the Federal government in return for the magnanimous gift of their own money that was returned to them?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.




    In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

    Really? Who paid for that?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

     

    Really? Who paid for that?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll save you some time.  His reply will be one of the following:

         the evil rich people paid for it.

         the poor noble people who don't pay taxes are-paying for it.

         the evil rich people should pay more.

         these are red states.

         Bush did it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

     

    Interesting. And how much money do you suppose these states sent to the Federal government in return for the magnanimous gift of their own money that was returned to them?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

     

     



    That statistic is close to worthless.... The "state" doesnt send a dollar...and the $1.63 back is not given to the 'state'.
    The devil is in the details...

     

    Small population states like Alaska with many National Parks and other federal spending will show as getting more "federal funding per dollar paid"...what that means ..isnt much. It isnt the citizens of the state getting the money, nor is it the state Government...

    The federal Government's core Constitutional role for military defense does  not mean a small state with defense bases, or national parks, is a "taker".

    The liberals play with these menaingless statistics to try to pretend their core Democratic base doesnt have an unprecedented number of welfare recipients and huge unproductive public sector ....

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    Tell all of that to the thousands of private contractors who work at the behest of the federal government's efforts to privatize many of its operations.

    The days of the $1200 hammer and $600 toilet seat are not gone; they've just shifted to service contracts as subject to special interests as anything else the government does...

    ...with highly dubious results.

     

    Though not universal by any means, any effort to rein in so-called "wasteful spending" often leads to an inefficient, shoddily-run private enterprise who's trying to soak the govt and taxpayers for every cent they can get.

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

     

    Interesting. And how much money do you suppose these states sent to the Federal government in return for the magnanimous gift of their own money that was returned to them?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

     

     



    That statistic is close to worthless.... The "state" doesnt send a dollar...and the $1.63 back is not given to the 'state'.
    The devil is in the details...

     

    Small population states like Alaska with many National Parks and other federal spending will show as getting more "federal funding per dollar paid"...what that means ..isnt much. It isnt the citizens of the state getting the money, nor is it the state Government...

    The federal Government's core Constitutional role for military defense does  not mean a small state with defense bases, or national parks, is a "taker".

    The liberals play with these menaingless statistics to try to pretend their core Democratic base doesnt have an unprecedented number of welfare recipients and huge unproductive public sector ....

     

     




    So New Mexico, West Virginia, and Missisisippi are loaded with National Parks and military bases? 

    Is that your argument?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    Though not universal by any means, any effort to rein in so-called "wasteful spending" often leads to an inefficient, shoddily-run private enterprise who's trying to soak the govt and taxpayers for every cent they can get.

    Whose excesses are often (when they are not actually colluding with Government entities) constrained by law and Government oversight. Who constrains the Government?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Small population states like Alaska with many National Parks and other federal spending will show as getting more "federal funding per dollar paid"...what that means ..isnt much. It isnt the citizens of the state getting the money, nor is it the state Government...

    The federal Government's core Constitutional role for military defense does  not mean a small state with defense bases, or national parks, is a "taker".

    The liberals play with these menaingless statistics to try to pretend their core Democratic base doesnt have an unprecedented number of welfare recipients and huge unproductive public sector ....

      




    Translation: "The numbers don't prove what I want them to, so I'll ignore them and throw out a strawman instead."

    Lame.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!



    Pointless. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So a bunch of lobbyists flock to DC to ply their trade.

    Isn't this the wingnut's ideal 1st Amend scenario?



    Yes, only wingnuts employ lobbyists.

    Now go sit in the corner.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Though not universal by any means, any effort to rein in so-called "wasteful spending" often leads to an inefficient, shoddily-run private enterprise who's trying to soak the govt and taxpayers for every cent they can get.

     

    Whose excesses are often (when they are not actually colluding with Government entities) constrained by law and Government oversight. Who constrains the Government?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Congress.

    Or at least, they're supposed to.

    Otherwise, it's the domain of the GAO where individual agencies are unable to perform their own oversight/audits.

     

    Being "constrained by law" is not the same as having those laws properly enforced...enforcement tasks which are often perpetually hamstrung by...wait for it...

    ...budget negotiations in Congress.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... well you better let TX know that because they are putting out some false info.

     

     

    In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#oilgas

    Those are TAX DEDUCTIONS, not handouts of federal taxpayer money, like Obama's buddies got for failed green energy.

    “Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

    Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.  Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners.  Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”.  A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

    Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Tell all of that to the thousands of private contractors who work at the behest of the federal government's efforts to privatize many of its operations.

    The days of the $1200 hammer and $600 toilet seat are not gone; they've just shifted to service contracts as subject to special interests as anything else the government does...

    ...with highly dubious results.

    Though not universal by any means, any effort to rein in so-called "wasteful spending" often leads to an inefficient, shoddily-run private enterprise who's trying to soak the govt and taxpayers for every cent they can get.

    The shoddily run, pork barrel public sector replaced with a shoddily run private setor enterprise? No question this happens, because politicians will give contracts to their cronies.

    How about we dont privatize many of these Government functions, just get rid of them entirely.

    Junk the 92 federal welfare programs that spend trillions, and are failures. Have a minimum income,  pay cash to the poor.

    Have the liberal bureaucrats get a real job.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Well if you don't like the general amounts of federal tax dollars received per tax dollar paid, how about a chart that shows the percentage of federal tax dollars paid directly to each states budget. This is money that each state receives directly into their general revenue funds.

     

    Federal Aid to State Budgets as a percentage of state revenue.

    1.  MS   49.01%
    2.  LA   46.52%
    3.  AZ   45.70%
    4.  SD   45.56%
    5.  MO   44.36%
    6.  TN   44.03%
    7.  NM   42.57%
    8.  MT   41.86%
    9.  GA   41.07%
    10. NY   40.45%
     

    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/states-reliant-on-federal-funds-unprepared-for-cuts 

     



    Again with the "percentage of state revenue" ...which is very misleading, since small red states have small budgets.
    Huge state Governments in big blue states have huge state budgets and will get less of a 'percentage' of federal dollars by comparison ....that doesnt mean small red states are "takers"  ...

     

    Look at the raw numbers, 2010:

    New York received $61 billion in federal dollars

    California received $52 billion

    Mississippi received $8 billion

    Louisiana received $13 billion

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... well you better let TX know that because they are putting out some false info.

     

     

    In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#oilgas

     

     

     

     

    Those are TAX DEDUCTIONS, not handouts of federal taxpayer money, like Obama's buddies got for failed green energy.

    “Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

    Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.  Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners.  Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”.  A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

    Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves.




    Like I said, TX considers those tax breaks subsidies, as does virtually everyone else not in the industry that benefits.

     

    Of course commonsense would tell you that if someone gets a break on their taxes, which in turn increases their income, only because of the industry they are in, then that, by definition is a subsidy.

    Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).

     



    The tax deductions taken by the oil industry are identical as other businesses...so what statist -worshippers Obama and you are saying is, for a disfavored industry that doesnt bow to the Messiah,  any tax less than 100% is a "subsidy"...got it.

    Whereby billions on direct taxpayer handouts to cronies for failed green energy is ,um, an "investment"...

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share