I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

I don't think any state is immune from a natural disaster. I would like to see if any Texas Legislators voted against helping New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy though. This is such a fine line though. People are hurting and lives are in danger. Politics should be played in about a month after the disaster is over. Your point is right but the timing may be a little off.

Interesting statistic.

Would be nice to see a breakdown of the types of assistance. Judging two numbers alone might not be doing it justice.

A few examples of what could be some of the difference:

1)I'd argue that some States need more Federal Aid due to Natural Disasters.

2) Working in the Insurance Industry, I know that insurance for Flood and Crop can ONLY be handled by the Federal Government since they are the only ones with the resources to handle that pool of risk. Some States have more of this exposure than others. This might be considered a type of Federal assistance.

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

What does this actually mean?
How were the numbers calculated?
What was the basis for sourcing revenues?
How were expenditures for things like defense allocated?
What about Fred and Ethel, who paid into social security in blue Michigan and then retired to red south and started drawing it?

There are thousands of similar questions that can be asked--and you know the answers to none of them.

You can't do a "study" like this without making a large number of judgmental allocations. The data just don't exist to do it any other way. And you can bias the answer tremendously by how you make those assumptions.

Plus, even the answer the "study" gets does not support the claim in the graphic. It's not the states that are paying or receiving money, it's people living in those states.

Here we go again...

Texas pays more federal taxes than they take in.

I remember seeing a chart on this. Mississippi was the worst one if I remember but Texas was a net payer.

I'd make the following wager...you create some objective measure of fiscal health and well being in mid to large-sized cities, and the healthier ones will tend to be Republican-led cities and the worst ones would tend to be Democratic cities. Would anyone take that bet?

(05-28-2015 10:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember seeing a chart on this. Mississippi was the worst one if I remember but Texas was a net payer.

As I noted, it depends on how you do the allocations. I can make Texas a net payer or a net receiver by simply changing the allocation for oil and gas taxes. I know, I've played with the numbers. Same sorts of things for other states depending on how you do it. That's why I don't put much trust in these sorts of "studies."

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

1) It's not interesting at all the you would use a natural disaster to try and make this point.

2) Either the nation is United or it is not. Such distinctions don't in any way prove the efficacy of either parties politics.

Who the heck is Wallet Hub?
What credibility do they have since they have only been around since 2012.
Why should we believe and infographic from them, especially without the metrics used included?

(05-28-2015 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

1) It's not interesting at all the you would use a natural disaster to try and make this point.

2) Either the nation is United or it is not. Such distinctions don't in any way prove the efficacy of either parties politics.

That is an excellent point.

Let's remember however which states specifically began murmurs of secession when Obama was elected. Interesting isn't it?

Here is the website with all the data.

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-lea...ment/2700/

(05-28-2015 10:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

1) It's not interesting at all the you would use a natural disaster to try and make this point.

2) Either the nation is United or it is not. Such distinctions don't in any way prove the efficacy of either parties politics.

That is an excellent point.

Let's remember however which states specifically began murmurs of secession when Obama was elected. Interesting isn't it?

Why is it interesting? So what if Texas has secessionists.
Vermont and New Hampshire have their secessionist nuts too.
Every state has wackos.

If Texas pays taxes to the federal government they are no less unworthy of federal aid for a natural disaster than NY, CA or Washington DC.

(05-28-2015 10:45 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

1) It's not interesting at all the you would use a natural disaster to try and make this point.

2) Either the nation is United or it is not. Such distinctions don't in any way prove the efficacy of either parties politics.

That is an excellent point.

Let's remember however which states specifically began murmurs of secession when Obama was elected. Interesting isn't it?

Why is it interesting? So what if Texas has secessionists.
Vermont and New Hampshire have their secessionist nuts too.
Every state has wackos.

If Texas pays taxes to the federal government they are no less unworthy of federal aid for a natural disaster than NY, CA or Washington DC.

I have never said that they don't deserve federal aid. In fact, I think they do deserve it and should get it.

The biggest problem with their methodology is that States don't pay taxes to the federal government, individuals and businesses do. Delaware is the state that's least "dependent" because 60% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, but that's not where the revenue is generated. A couple of billion dollars in federal tax revenues sent in from New Jersey come from Exxon/Mobil, but it's not just the people of New Jersey paying all those fuel taxes. In other words, if the union were to dissolve tomorrow, and each of the 50 states became a separate country and each taxed these corporations on the income generated within their own borders, you'd have a completely different picture.

It's pretty stupid to describe states as being "dependent" on the federal government because federal dollars are spent there.
Who benefits from highway spending on I-70 through Kansas, the people of Kansas, or the shoppers at a New Jersey Wal-mart whose Chinese goods were trucked thru Kansas? Both.
Are the people of Texas the only ones who benefit from the tanks at Fort Hood? Nope.
And how about farm subsidies - think only the Iowa farmers benefit from those? Want to pay $15/gallon for milk?

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

You really don't want to go into specifics on these facts. Feelings will get hurt.

(05-28-2015 10:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted this on another thread but thought it deserves discussion.

Given that Texas is curently in need of Federal Emergency Aid, I thought this little graphic would be interesting to discuss.

1) It's not interesting at all the you would use a natural disaster to try and make this point.

2) Either the nation is United or it is not. Such distinctions don't in any way prove the efficacy of either parties politics.

That is an excellent point.

Let's remember however which states specifically began murmurs of secession when Obama was elected. Interesting isn't it?

Yes, there are racists within the GOP whom I love to have out of the party. Some within the GOP were upset the Obama was elected President. For some it was a race issue, for others it was a competency issue.

With that out of the way, please explain how any of the above has to do with the fact that the Texas Governor has declared a national disaster and the President and responded appropriately?

(05-28-2015 10:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The biggest problem with their methodology is that States don't pay taxes to the federal government, individuals and businesses do. Delaware is the state that's least "dependent" because 60% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, but that's not where the revenue is generated. A couple of billion dollars in federal tax revenues sent in from New Jersey come from Exxon/Mobil, but it's not just the people of New Jersey paying all those fuel taxes. In other words, if the union were to dissolve tomorrow, and each of the 50 states became a separate country and each taxed these corporations on the income generated within their own borders, you'd have a completely different picture.

It's pretty stupid to describe states as being "dependent" on the federal government because federal dollars are spent there.
Who benefits from highway spending on I-70 through Kansas, the people of Kansas, or the shoppers at a New Jersey Wal-mart whose Chinese goods were trucked thru Kansas? Both.
Are the people of Texas the only ones who benefit from the tanks at Fort Hood? Nope.
And how about farm subsidies - think only the Iowa farmers benefit from those? Want to pay $15/gallon for milk?

You're starting to sound like a socialist. Are you suggesting that people in other states benefit from highways in Kansas?

Next thing your going to say is that New Jersey didn't build that.

(05-28-2015 10:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The biggest problem with their methodology is that States don't pay taxes to the federal government, individuals and businesses do. Delaware is the state that's least "dependent" because 60% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, but that's not where the revenue is generated. A couple of billion dollars in federal tax revenues sent in from New Jersey come from Exxon/Mobil, but it's not just the people of New Jersey paying all those fuel taxes. In other words, if the union were to dissolve tomorrow, and each of the 50 states became a separate country and each taxed these corporations on the income generated within their own borders, you'd have a completely different picture.
It's pretty stupid to describe states as being "dependent" on the federal government because federal dollars are spent there.
Who benefits from highway spending on I-70 through Kansas, the people of Kansas, or the shoppers at a New Jersey Wal-mart whose Chinese goods were trucked thru Kansas? Both.
Are the people of Texas the only ones who benefit from the tanks at Fort Hood? Nope.
And how about farm subsidies - think only the Iowa farmers benefit from those? Want to pay $15/gallon for milk?

Exactly. It's not the states, it's the people in them. And allocating things like your examples, and hundreds or thousands more, mean that the results can be moved all over the place by the biases inherent in your methodology and allocation choices. I can make Texas a net gainer or a net loser just by how I allocate oil and gas tax revenues. And more to the point, if Texas were independent tomorrow, there wouldn't be any allocation of those revenues, they would stay in Texas. It's meaningless.