(07-12-2014 05:50 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  So I guess we agree that people should stop paying taxes. As we have seen with immigration, 10 million people can subvert the system and cause it to crash and burn.

Even the EPA is going to be able to garnish your wages. Good luck dodging taxes.

In any event, taxes don't really matter. If every person failed to pay taxes the government would continue to sell IOU's to the Federal Reserve and keep on chugging.

What will ultimately kill the perpetual motion machine is other nations stopping using the dollar as world's reserve currency and denominating trade in dollars and seeing dollars as a safe haven. Unfortunately that's in the minds of much of the world.

(07-12-2014 05:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:20 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I agree with both of you here. My question, seriously, is this whole scenario simply a result of capitalisms unprecedented success? Marx (Ithink), suggested capitalism held the seeds of its own destruction. I'm starting to think he may have been right.

But this isn't capitalism.

That's the question I think I already posed once on this thread for those on the left.

When something good happens, you tout the fact that we are a mixed capitalist/socialist economy.
When something bad happens, it's because we have a capitalist economy.

Well, we have either one or the other. So which is it?

My own opinion is that we have a mixed economy and it's socialism that's screwing it up and capitalism that is coming to the rescue. And as far as the whole corporatist thing, that requires some degree of socialism. In a true capitalist society, like the one Milton Friedman describes in the passage I quoted on another thread, there are no crony bureaucrats to get involved with the crony capitalists. You don't crony with the invisible hand.

I don't see it quite as simply as that. My thinking is the exact opposite. Unbridled capitalism, because of its own self-destructive nature, invites socialist responses to "save" the country from the excess of capitalism. I believe Friedman makes an allowance for governmental intervention in extreme situations, in order to correct for excess. The problem, as someone else stated, comes from the tendency for goovernment to stay involved, long after its original mission has been accomplished.Civil rights may be an example of this in the social arena and I'm sure there are many examples on the business side.
But I digress here. Are subsidies and "pork" just a couple of socialist interventions that benefit the wealthy? If so, isn't it safe to say socialist interventions dealing with social issues are hated, wheras socialist interventions dealing with aiding industry and the wealthy are praised?

So yes, to answer your question, I believe we've had a mixed economy for some time. Neither capitalism or socialism are immune from mistakes. Why would either be? There is no perfect system and any decent economist will tell you economics is largely theoretical, prone to falling under the influence of far to many unknowable variables.

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

and it has been in the making for many years. We are reaching critical mass.

The mistake we made:

Being open to anyone. Those who follow liberal ideologies are nomadic. Their own policy makes one place unlivable. So they relocate. But they cannot help but bring the same ideology with them.

"This time it will be different."

You don't think it was southerners that turned Maryland and Virgina blue, do you?

Look at a electoral map of the United States. The cancer is growing.

It's not liberalism, it's progressivism. The two aren't necessarily the same, just like conservatism isn't a problem, it's regressivism (I have no idea if this is a real term).

One thing I've noticed about our brand of progressive, which is totally unique to the rest of the world, is that they use other countries as reasons to do something coupled with the most flawed understanding of how these strategies are implemented in these countries. I can't tell you how many I've heard praise the Canadian healthcare system without knowing how it f'n works (a lot of conservatives also misunderstand, but in the polar opposite direction). Same goes for any number of other issues.

(07-12-2014 07:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

and it has been in the making for many years. We are reaching critical mass.

The mistake we made:

Being open to anyone. Those who follow liberal ideologies are nomadic. Their own policy makes one place unlivable. So they relocate. But they cannot help but bring the same ideology with them.

"This time it will be different."

You don't think it was southerners that turned Maryland and Virgina blue, do you?

Look at a electoral map of the United States. The cancer is growing.

+1 ....Amen


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

If you look at 'successful' nations, you'll find that virtually all of them have regulatory or taxation regimes more strict than those of the US. And those nations that have less effective regulation and/or taxation tend to be much worse than the US.

The reality of what makes a country strong isn't the number of ultra rich but the depth and purchasing power of a large middle class. There's a balancing act that efficient economies have between allowing 'reasonable' levels of rewards to accrue to those that produce extra value to an economy (and no - hedge fund managers aren't included in the 'extra value' category) and ensuring that the rewards of a society don't get sucked upwards to benefit a small number at the top, who might not have earned those benefits. The common levers used to keep concentration of wealth and income for choking an economy include progressive taxation, regulation, anti-trust legislation, and estate taxation.

The top 400 persons in the United States earned 35% of all income in the USA in 2012. And paid an average tax rate lower than that of a salaried person making 250,000 a year. If those people came up with a cure for cancer or founded some new technology, great. But if they are just some hedge fund manager extracting some unearned 'rent' on assets they didn't create or someone living off inherited income, then its not so great.

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

Not going to happen. The 'red states' are largely leeches off of the economic powerhouses, which are largely 'blue states'.

You've got one economic leader in the 'red state' category, Texas. I love Texas. I moved here from California. But Texas is a middle income state on average. And Texas won't be red forever. It wont be as quick as many Dems think, but by 2022 at the latest demographics will make the political dynamic change over.

If I'm in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma, I'd be terrified of what would happen to my economy without the massive transfers to my state from 'blue states'. Imagine Montgomery without Maxwell. Or Biloxi without Keesler. Or NW Florida without Eglin.

(07-12-2014 09:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

Not going to happen. The 'red states' are largely leeches off of the economic powerhouses, which are largely 'blue states'.

You've got one economic leader in the 'red state' category, Texas. I love Texas. I moved here from California. But Texas is a middle income state on average. And Texas won't be red forever. It wont be as quick as many Dems think, but by 2022 at the latest demographics will make the political dynamic change over.

If I'm in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma, I'd be terrified of what would happen to my economy without the massive transfers to my state from 'blue states'. Imagine Montgomery without Maxwell. Or Biloxi without Keesler. Or NW Florida without Eglin.

You are largely insane.

(07-12-2014 10:06 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

Not going to happen. The 'red states' are largely leeches off of the economic powerhouses, which are largely 'blue states'.

You've got one economic leader in the 'red state' category, Texas. I love Texas. I moved here from California. But Texas is a middle income state on average. And Texas won't be red forever. It wont be as quick as many Dems think, but by 2022 at the latest demographics will make the political dynamic change over.

If I'm in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma, I'd be terrified of what would happen to my economy without the massive transfers to my state from 'blue states'. Imagine Montgomery without Maxwell. Or Biloxi without Keesler. Or NW Florida without Eglin.

You are largely insane.

See table two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...g_by_state

South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from DC for every dollar sent there. Alabama gets 2.46 dollars for ever dollar sent there. Mississippi gets 2 for 1. Louisiana 1.4 to 1. North Dakota 4 to 1. Tennessee 1.3 to 1.

California, New York, Illinois are all massive net contributors to DC.

There are some blue states that are net leeches and some red states that are net contributors, but a quick look at the list shows that many 'red states' would fare much worse without redistribution from blue states.

South Carolina's GOP government. The real welfare queens.

(07-12-2014 10:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:06 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 09:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What will eventually happen: There will be a major conflict. The blue and red states will separate and form smaller countries. It probably will not happen in our lifetimes. It will happen in our children's lifetime. Liberalism is like cancer. It is hard to cure once it sets in.

That's been said for many years.

Not going to happen. The 'red states' are largely leeches off of the economic powerhouses, which are largely 'blue states'.

You've got one economic leader in the 'red state' category, Texas. I love Texas. I moved here from California. But Texas is a middle income state on average. And Texas won't be red forever. It wont be as quick as many Dems think, but by 2022 at the latest demographics will make the political dynamic change over.

If I'm in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma, I'd be terrified of what would happen to my economy without the massive transfers to my state from 'blue states'. Imagine Montgomery without Maxwell. Or Biloxi without Keesler. Or NW Florida without Eglin.

You are largely insane.

See table two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...g_by_state

South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from DC for every dollar sent there. Alabama gets 2.46 dollars for ever dollar sent there. Mississippi gets 2 for 1. Louisiana 1.4 to 1. North Dakota 4 to 1. Tennessee 1.3 to 1.

California, New York, Illinois are all massive net contributors to DC.

There are some blue states that are net leeches and some red states that are net contributors, but a quick look at the list shows that many 'red states' would fare much worse without redistribution from blue states.

South Carolina's GOP government. The real welfare queens.

Well I guess somebody has to pay for the open border policies of the lefters. Talk about a bunch of convoluted nonscense.

Tom lives in one huge "alternative life". That's all!


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from the taxpayers for every dollar it sends to DC. Take it up with the CBO if you have a problem with their calculations.

Where are y'all getting your numbers as to who gets more from DC then they send to DC?

Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

(07-12-2014 11:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from the taxpayers for every dollar it sends to DC. Take it up with the CBO if you have a problem with their calculations.

Where are y'all getting your numbers as to who gets more from DC then they send to DC?

You are an idiot if you think comparing numbers on a per capita basis is equal state to state. Besides DC isn't even a state unless it is one of Zero's 57. You could wipe your as$ with the CBO's numbers anyway.

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

(07-12-2014 06:12 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I don't see it quite as simply as that. My thinking is the exact opposite. Unbridled capitalism, because of its own self-destructive nature, invites socialist responses to "save" the country from the excess of capitalism.

But unbridled capitalism has never existed. Friedman's point, with which I agree, is that the so-called excesses of unbridled capitalism in fact require substantial government intervention in order to exist.

Quote:I believe Friedman makes an allowance for governmental intervention in extreme situations, in order to correct for excess. The problem, as someone else stated, comes from the tendency for government to stay involved, long after its original mission has been accomplished.Civil rights may be an example of this in the social arena and I'm sure there are many examples on the business side.

This is one problem and we obviously agree on that. The other problem is the tendency of government to stay involved and throw ever more money at a problem even after it becomes obvious that the government solution is not the proper one. See War on Drugs for an example. The bottom line is that once you give a government bureaucrat some power and a budget, his sole concern becomes to grow that power and that budget. The real tragedy that I see is that what used to be representative government, accountable to the people, has largely become government by bureaucratic fiat, imposed by nameless, faceless, and unaccountable operatives. A classic example is the "if you like your doctor ... if you like your health insurance ..." controversy. The law as written probably allows that, and that's what Obama can claim to be talking about. But it doesn't specify that directly, and it also authorizes HHS to write regulations to implement it. And it's those HHS regulations, not the law itself, that screwed the pooch on that one. Now do Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, get a bye because they had no way of knowing that's what would happen? I don't think so. I think they knew exactly how it would play out--they've been in Washington too long, even Obama, not to. It was just very convenient to write a law that left that point open, and claim ignorance when HSS wrote the regs. That's why I have a hard time with the left's argument that we control the government. No, we don't.

As Ronald Reagan said, "The closest we will come to everlasting life in this world is a federal agency." That needs very badly to change.

Quote:But I digress here. Are subsidies and "pork" just a couple of socialist interventions that benefit the wealthy? If so, isn't it safe to say socialist interventions dealing with social issues are hated, wheras socialist interventions dealing with aiding industry and the wealthy are praised?

Technically, subsidies and pork are probably more fascist than socialist. The socialist model is government ownership of means of production, the fascist model is private ownership with heavy government intervention.

I'm not quite sure where you are getting the idea behind your hated/praised question. I think the tendency is to say that the right would look at it the way that you describe, and maybe that's what you are getting at. But I see it differently. I think we have a governing class that sees all interventions as good because they increase the power of government. They are perfectly happy to have a republican administration trample civil liberties with a "patriot" act, followed by a democrat administration that vastly increases regulation of (and therefore power over) health care and the financial sector. And we have a governed class (the rest of us) that has so far gone along with these things because it truly believed the rhetoric that they were for our own good.

I'll tell you whose good it's for. The top three counties in the US in household income (Loudon and Fairfax, VA, and Howard, MD), 5 of the top 6 (add Arlington and Stafford, VA), and 7 of the top 12 (add Montgomery, MD, and Prince William, VA) are in the DC metro area. That's an astounding transfer of wealth from the rest of us to the ruling class. And the wealth transfer is dwarfed by the accompanying power transfer. What's more, as long as Virginia remains one of the few true swing states, with a relatively large number of electoral votes, nobody is going to take that on.

Quote:So yes, to answer your question, I believe we've had a mixed economy for some time. Neither capitalism or socialism are immune from mistakes. Why would either be? There is no perfect system and any decent economist will tell you economics is largely theoretical, prone to falling under the influence of far to many unknowable variables.

Well, then, if we've had a mixed economy for some time, then doesn't it follow that the problems that we see and attribute to the excesses of capitalism are in fact attributable to the failings of a mixed economy?

And to finish the thought, doesn't it therefore follow that those imperfections in the science of economics mean that a managed economy is unlikely to do better, and in fact almost certain to do worse, than one where government interference is minimized? Doesn't it make sense that the "invisible hand" can do a better job that some bureaucrat with a computer printout? Isn't the force of that "invisible hand" always going to be there, and isn't it more powerful than human hands, so that we are going to have to deal with it sooner or later anyhow, and isn't putting it off until later merely ensuring that the bust will be bigger when it comes?

Neither Friedman nor I would support anarchy. His model, which I posted on another thread, has a robust government that performs meaningful tasks.

(07-12-2014 11:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from the taxpayers for every dollar it sends to DC. Take it up with the CBO if you have a problem with their calculations.
Where are y'all getting your numbers as to who gets more from DC then they send to DC?

1. I don't believe those are CBO's numbers. At least going to the linked page and drilling down from there, you don't come to any CBO numbers. I don't think I've ever seen such a calculation from CBO.
2. The numbers at the linked page and the drill downs don't tie to the historic numbers in Obama's 2015 budget at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. The differences aren't huge and are probably easily explained, just strange that there are differences.
3. It isn't South Carolina, or any other state, that sends or receives those dollars. It's people within those states. And that introduces several issues.
4. A large portion of the difference is welfare spending. Southern states have more poverty generally, for historic reasons that have little to do with current policies. Thus southern states receive relatively more welfare spending. The expectation if there were a split would be that red states would continue fewer welfare programs and blue states would add more. Thus people on welfare in red states would have to choose among 1) starving, 2) getting a job, or 3) moving to a blue state. Any of those choices would change this dynamic.
5. Another large portion is retirement income. People work in the north and retire to the south, not the other way around. If Fred works for Ford and Ethel is a school teacher in Michigan, and they work until they are 65 and then retire to Myrtle Beach to play golf, were their social security taxes paid by Michigan and are their benefits now paid to South Carolina, or is this just Fred and Ethel getting their money back?
6. As you imply, a large part is also military. When you are training outdoors, flying or marching or whatever, the Florida panhandle will give you a lot fewer weather cancellations than upstate New York. That puts a disproportionate share of military bases (and as corollaries, defense contractors and military retirees, both getting federal money) in red states. And if you think Keesler, Eglin, Tyndall, and Maxwell are redundant, then you simply don't understand the missions. Maxwell could probably be anywhere, but it probably costs less to keep it where it is than to move it. From a strategic or tactical standpoint, it probably makes sense to have more dispersion, not less.
7. On the revenue side, any kind of analysis requires a lot of methodological assumptions. You make either a gross number of small assumptions or a small number of gross assumptions. The linked analysis appears to be of the small number of gross assumptions variety, but I'd need to see a more detailed analysis before formulating questions.

(07-13-2014 05:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  South Carolina gets 5.3 dollars from the taxpayers for every dollar it sends to DC. Take it up with the CBO if you have a problem with their calculations.
Where are y'all getting your numbers as to who gets more from DC then they send to DC?

1. I don't believe those are CBO's numbers. At least going to the linked page and drilling down from there, you don't come to any CBO numbers. I don't think I've ever seen such a calculation from CBO.
2. The numbers at the linked page and the drill downs don't tie to the historic numbers in Obama's 2015 budget at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. The differences aren't huge and are probably easily explained, just strange that there are differences.
3. It isn't South Carolina, or any other state, that sends or receives those dollars. It's people within those states. And that introduces several issues.
4. A large portion of the difference is welfare spending. Southern states have more poverty generally, for historic reasons that have little to do with current policies. Thus southern states receive relatively more welfare spending. The expectation if there were a split would be that red states would continue fewer welfare programs and blue states would add more. Thus people on welfare in red states would have to choose among 1) starving, 2) getting a job, or 3) moving to a blue state. Any of those choices would change this dynamic.
5. Another large portion is retirement income. People work in the north and retire to the south, not the other way around. If Fred works for Ford and Ethel is a school teacher in Michigan, and they work until they are 65 and then retire to Myrtle Beach to play golf, were their social security taxes paid by Michigan and are their benefits now paid to South Carolina, or is this just Fred and Ethel getting their money back?
6. As you imply, a large part is also military. When you are training outdoors, flying or marching or whatever, the Florida panhandle will give you a lot fewer weather cancellations than upstate New York. That puts a disproportionate share of military bases (and as corollaries, defense contractors and military retirees, both getting federal money) in red states. And if you think Keesler, Eglin, Tyndall, and Maxwell are redundant, then you simply don't understand the missions. Maxwell could probably be anywhere, but it probably costs less to keep it where it is than to move it. From a strategic or tactical standpoint, it probably makes sense to have more dispersion, not less.
7. On the revenue side, any kind of analysis requires a lot of methodological assumptions. You make either a gross number of small assumptions or a small number of gross assumptions. The linked analysis appears to be of the small number of gross assumptions variety, but I'd need to see a more detailed analysis before formulating questions.

The result of a loss of transfer payments from blue to red states would be catastrophic for South Carolina. First, an independent 'redlandia' wouldn't get those retirees. They'd stay where their insurance is valid, where their currency is similar etc. Myrtle Beach with no snowbirds? Ugly. And lets try and see how many rural hospitals survive in SC without taxpayer subsidized health care. They'd all go broke - quickly. And then cutting welfare payments. People wouldn't get jobs that don't exist. People wouldn't have as much income, which would kill the retail sector. Call it trickle up economics. Thousands of South Carolinians work in the retail and services sector providing goods and services to low income South Carolinians. Those goods and services are provided with a margin to the producer/provider. Remove a massive amount of income from that sector, and remove the margin. Many businesses in SC would close. Many service providers would either make less income or simply take their skills and move.

'Redlandia' wouldn't have the same military size as the US, even on a per capita basis, because it would be far poorer than the US.

There's little dispersion gains with the current set up AF bases. And why build three of them in Hurricane Zones. They can all fit onto the grounds of Eglin.

(07-13-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The result of a loss of transfer payments from blue to red states would be catastrophic for South Carolina. First, an independent 'redlandia' wouldn't get those retirees. They'd stay where their insurance is valid, where their currency is similar etc. Myrtle Beach with no snowbirds? Ugly. And lets try and see how many rural hospitals survive in SC without taxpayer subsidized health care. They'd all go broke - quickly. And then cutting welfare payments. People wouldn't get jobs that don't exist. People wouldn't have as much income, which would kill the retail sector. Call it trickle up economics. Thousands of South Carolinians work in the retail and services sector providing goods and services to low income South Carolinians. Those goods and services are provided with a margin to the producer/provider. Remove a massive amount of income from that sector, and remove the margin. Many businesses in SC would close. Many service providers would either make less income or simply take their skills and move.
'Redlandia' wouldn't have the same military size as the US, even on a per capita basis, because it would be far poorer than the US.
There's little dispersion gains with the current set up AF bases. And why build three of them in Hurricane Zones. They can all fit onto the grounds of Eglin.

Myrtle without snowbirds? I'd be able to get better tee times.

Seriously, though, you've really identified a key point. The blue states are generally more wealthy than the red states, and any income redistribution scheme is going to move money from wealthier areas to poorer areas. But they are more wealthy not because they are blue now, but as a legacy of 200 years of (mostly red) policies. A blue north would be richer than a red south on day one. But if the red states persisted in their red policies and the blue states persisted in their blue policies, the growth would gravitate to the red states and further rust-belt-ization of the blue states would continue. You would find a pretty significant wealth transfer over time, just as is happening internationally now. Take the red south with the resources and infrastructure they have now (some of it admittedly paid for by the blue north) and give it a competitive tax and regulatory structure, and you'd be talking white hot economic growth for decades. Yes you would have one-off wealth development in blue areas, like Silicon Valley. But Silicon Valley is almost exclusively a few people getting very rich with little impact on the rest. Apple doesn't make things in Silicon Valley, can't afford to, so the wealth spreading that manufacturing creates doesn't happen there.

As for the military bases, that seems to be a particular hangup of yours, I guess from growing up where you did. Keesler, Maxwell, Eglin and Tyndall have four very different missions. Yes, you could fit Keesler, Maxwell, and and Tyndall within the footprint of Eglin. But then Eglin wouldn't be able to perform its mission. As for why hurricane zones, well, it's hurricane zones or snow zones, and hurricanes are a lot less frequent.

My own approach to cutting military spending would include exchanging a significant number of active duty slots for a significantly larger number of reserve slots. It's how all of the countries that punch substantially above their weight do it. In that plan, we would clearly need fewer active duty bases. Some would convert to reserve training bases and some would cease to be military bases altogether. The general rule would be convert bases in proximity to large population centers to reserve bases (easier for more troops to get to drills) and drop bases with redundant missions. Neither of those would apply to the four you listed. Keesler is probably the one with the least need to be where it is, but it would be costly to move and the money is already spent there.

There was an interesting controversy regarding the closing of Bergstrom in Austin a few years ago. There is a huge growth/no-growth ongoing political battle going on there, and growth forces are winning overall because the area is simply too attractive in so many ways. The growth forces were fighting to have it closed, while the no-growth forces wanted it kept open. Why? Because one thing holding back growth in Austin was lack of a first-class airport. Bergstrom could serve that purpose if closed, and it was, and it does. Bergstrom was a B-52 base and I believe the assets were transferred to Barksdale.

The bottom line is that mission should drive expenditures and not expenditures drive mission. The latter results not only in underspending for things you need but also overspending for things you don't need.