So what does this have to do with the discussion regarding welfare in red and blue states? Let me answer - Nothing.
This has been debunked yet you continue to repeat it. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...Don-t-Even-Think-About-Closing-Military-Bases Congress to Pentagon: Don’t Even Think About Closing Military Bases December 18, 2015 The Defense Department has been pressing for years to close unneeded bases in the U.S., which would save billions and help gradually downsize and reconfigure the military. But that campaign has been mostly greeted with hostility on Capitol Hill. Last March, for example, Pentagon officials argued before a Senate panel that a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round would pay off handsomely, producing $2 billion a year in savings by shrinking the infrastructure by only five percent, according to the Military Times. But influential Republicans including Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, chair of the Armed Services readiness subcommittee, lashed back, noting that the last BRAC in 2005 cost the government $35 billion and yet produced little in the way of savings. “Now is not the time to spend billions of up-front dollars on another BRAC round, especially as costs for the last one have dramatically exceeded expectations,” she said Just in case the Defense Department and the White House didn’t get the message, the GOP-controlled Congress inserted unmistakable language in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2016 barring DOD from planning another massive shutdown of military bases. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round,” states the legislation, which is awaiting final approval by the House and Senate. “Normally, Congress just tells an agency that they can’t spend money to do this or that,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But telling the Pentagon that they can’t spend money to propose a BRAC is the legislative equivalent of ‘don’t even think about it.’ The Administration can’t even put it in their Fiscal Year 2017 budget request next year.” It has been a full decade since Congress last authorized a major downsizing of the military’s U.S. footprint. More than 350 installations have been closed in five BRAC rounds dating back to 1988. In an effort to insulate the decision making from politics, Congress in the past has left the nitty gritty of deciding which bases to preserve and which to close to an independent commission, and then voted to approve or reject the overall recommendations. Related: $55 to $75 Billion--Guess How Much the New Stealth Bomber Will Cost Given the steady decline in the number of troops and civilian workers, there is less and less of a need to maintain many sprawling and costly bases and military installations in the country. The Defense Department at one time estimated its excess or surplus infrastructure at between 18 percent and 30 percent, according to The Fiscal Times. The Pentagon’s vast real estate portfolio includes more than 562,000 buildings and structures on 523 bases, posts and centers. At a time when Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are pressing to streamline the military and reorganize combat commands, administration officials, defense budget analysts and others are dismayed by the staunch congressional resistance to downsizing the infrastructure. This is especially alarming when the Pentagon is being showered with so much money -- $572.6 billion alone in fiscal 2016 – while little is being done to crack down on waste or adequately audit spending. However, lawmakers argue that the timing is wrong for another BRAC amid widespread public concern about defense and the threat of ISIS terrorists. And they say that the last downsizing during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush in 2005 provided a cautionary note about the limits to savings that can be achieved by closing bases. Mostly, House and Senate members don’t like base-closures because they are politically divisive – pitting one state against another – and they can lead to the loss of jobs and economic opportunity in their states that could become an issue during an election. Ayotte, for example, is facing a tough challenge next year from Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and can’t afford to appear willing to risk a base closing in New Hampshire. Related: U.S. Weapons Worth $500 Million Vanish in Yemen “Congressmen don’t want bases closed in their districts, it’s as simple as that,” said Gordon Adams, a professor emeritus at American University and an authority on defense spending and strategy. “And that’s almost entirely what it is. The military brass would love to close bases; they would love to get the savings from consolidating infrastructure for things that they really want. They know they have too much infrastructure.” However, the controversy isn’t cut and dried. When the last BRAC was considered and approved in 2005, the Pentagon estimated similar excess capacity to what it is claiming now, according to reports. Congress ultimately approved reducing military infrastructure by less than 3.5 percent, but at a cost of a startling $35 billion to achieve. The annual savings from that huge investment turned out to be roughly $4 billion. Ever since then, opponents of more base closures cite the Bush administration’s costly experiment. Yet Adams said that the 2005 BRAC was different from earlier efforts because “they did more realignment than they did closure.” Related: Army’s Plans to Cut 60,000 Could Be a Major Blow to the Economy “What that means is taking forces from point A and grouping with them with forces at point B, consolidating bombers, consolidating fighter aircraft,” he said. “They didn’t close very many bases. But they had to do a lot of spending to reconfigure bases so that they could receive the incoming material and people.” “Members of Congress hide behind that cost to oppose any future base closure rounds,” he added. http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2013/09/military_bases_defense_contrac.html Military bases, defense contracts, retirees bring $8.7 billion to Louisiana economy, study says The Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base's main entrance in Belle Chasse. The air station is one of the region's economic engines and plays a key role in the $527 million that military installations' payroll and contracts contribute to southeast Louisiana. (U.S. Navy) By Paul Purpura, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune on September 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM, updated September 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM The military presence and defense contracts pumped more than $8.7 billion into the Louisiana economy during the 2012 fiscal year, with almost one third of the money tied to bases and activities in the New Orleans area, according to a summary of a long-sought economic impact analysis commissioned by the state. About 82,700 Louisiana jobs -- or about 4.35 percent of the state’s employment -- are tied to the military, and the workforce generated $287 million in state and local taxes in fiscal 2012, according to the study. The military presence alone accounted for $5.2 billion during the year, an amount that includes payroll for troops and civilians who work for the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard or Louisiana Military Department, plus contracts associated with those installations. The balance includes defense contracts held by private companies in petroleum, shipbuilding and other industries, totaling $2.8 billion. Also, $637 million in pension checks was paid to the almost 24,000 military retirees living in Louisiana, according to the study. "We strongly support our military men and women in Louisiana as well as the installations at which they are based," Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Stephen Moret said Wednesday. "Accordingly, we have committed a great deal of staff time to developing and maintaining strong relationships with military installation leaders here as well as their superiors at the Pentagon." https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2016/september/military.php Military Installations Worth Billions for Texas Comptroller Study Weighs Economic Impacts by Bruce Wright Texans have a long and proud military tradition, and have distinguished themselves in every conflict since there was a Texas. But for many communities throughout the state, the military isn't just a focus for pride. B-1 flight prep: Flight preparation begins for a B-1B Lancer at Dyess Air Force Base. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar recently visited a number of Texas military installations to announce the results of a new study that quantifies the economic benefits Texas derives from the presence of these facilities in our state. The Comptroller study found that the 15 major military installations located in Texas generate more than $136.6 billion in economic activity here each year, and add $81.4 billion to our gross state product (Exhibit 1). They also generate $48.1 billion in annual personal income and support, directly and indirectly, nearly 806,000 Texas jobs.
Actually, that wasn't the original discussion. You tend to move topics. The original point was that Blue states pay more than they receive. Red states pay less. You then moved the goal posts to Farm Subsidies/Welfare/Etc. The bottom line is, regardless what Blue states do with the benefits they receive, they give more tax money than than they receive back in benefits, per capita. Period. Red state receive more than they give per capita. Period. It is what it is.
@gwb-trading , you'd have more success debating/educating those anti-maskers in the other threads. Those folks are Conservative.
Actually not. When you account for where the money actually lands up for items such as Farm Subsidies which for some reason is viewed as "welfare" to red states but the money lands up in blue states -- -but strangely enough is accounted for as payments to red states. Until people are honest about the actual data -- which actually shows a mix of blue and red states being so called "takers" or "contributors" -- then there is no purpose in having a conversation. "Welfare", "Taxation policy" and "federal monetary distribution" is a far more complex topic than simply being red states and blue states (not to mention all the purple states). People pushing this red state versus blue state "welfare" nonsense are merely trying to push political points and do not want to have a conversation about steps to actually improve the welfare situation or address poverty issues. The starting point to address actual policy improvements is agreement on the facts -- unfortunately the "facts" in the U.S. have turned in twisted political talking points.
I have quickly reviewed the state of California 2019 - 2020 budget and relative fuels taxes by states. This is just the beginning, of course. I have also briefly reviewed IL, WI, PA, GA, OR, WA, UT, TX, FL, OH, NY, and NJ. Notable are the tax and spend policies of Blue states relative to Red states. Preliminarily, the ratio of Blue state per capita spending versus benefits received is less favorable in Blue states than Red states, suggesting more inefficiency and or corruption in Blue states. There is a political campaign advantage for Republicans comparing the performance of Blue states and Red states. Therefore, I will create a comparison framework along with the suggestion of creating a comprehensive comparison database and present it to the RNC for widespread dissemination if they believe the idea would be useful. As a further bonus, it would serve to identify and call out media and DNC propaganda that attempt to obscure ineffective Democrat policy. In addition, one can simply look at a state’s budget, such as California’s, and prove ineffective, or worse, policy. For example, one part of the California budget creates a crisis and another part of the California budget addresses the crisis they created on their own. A deeper dive on anomalous per capita spending rates when compared to historical averages and with other states suggests inefficiency or corruption, rather than economy of scale benefits. For example, Blue states often brag about education spending. However, deep dives often show money is spent on school remodeling, including on relatively new schools. Further, the nature of the remodeling often requires higher long term maintenance rather than lower cost and more practical solutions, even if allowing the remodeling was necessary in the first place. Comparing revenue differences between Blue and Red states show Blues states benefit from Federal government subsidies whether they are paid to Blue states or Red states, such as with food cost lowering farm subsidies. Blue states receive larger Federal subsidies than Red states as well. How much of these Federal subsidies ends up in illegal immigrant’s hands? Further, Blue states are masters of sneaky taxes and other revenue “Enhancements” such as fines, higher fees from car registrations, driver’s licenses, real estate transaction fees, and required purchase of services through partisan service providers? Attached below is just a tiny sampling of the data available to compare Red state leadership versus Blue state leadership. As if the exodus out of California were not enough of an indication of a broken system under California Democrats Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Maxine Waters, to name a few. http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2019-20/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/marketing/monthly/xls/fueltaxes.xls https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Forms/Motcarr/9928-2020.pdf
It looks like there are still a few shots being fired in the contested 2020 US Presidential election. The first few paragraphs below: Democrats won the election, but they don’t seem very happy about it. And with reason: The election failed in its main purpose, which was to shut down the Deplorables. The Deplorables, in Hillary Clinton’s infamous term, are working- and middle-class people who haven’t bought into the progressive agenda. They’re people who don’t see the rise of the tech oligarchy as a plus, who don’t think “woke” politics makes sense, who have jobs that produce tangible outputs. They’re nearly half the country. This election was supposed to demoralize them, crushing President Trump and his supporters in a double-digit landslide that would give the Democrats solid control of the White House and Congress — and, with a little judicious court-packing, of the judicial branch, too. The Deplorables would be made to realize that they aren’t in charge, that if they want to ride, they’ll have to (in Barack Obama’s famous words) ride in the back. Only it didn’t work out that way. The big congressional victories turned into lost House seats for the Democrats. And the presidential election was hardly a crushing victory. For an election to really take, the losers have to admit that they’ve been beaten. And to admit that they’ve been beaten, they have to think they actually lost fair and square. Not many Trump supporters think that. Leaving aside charges of voter fraud and vote-rigging, there is the undisputable fact that Big Media and Big Tech put not just a thumb, but both hands on the scales to influence the result. As much as possible, the media ignored the Hunter Biden scandal and Joe Biden’s role in it, first reported in this paper. When blue-check reporters did pay attention, they claimed, falsely and without evidence, that the reports were “Russian disinformation.” Big Tech shut down the accounts of people who shared the story, and Twitter even blocked sharing the link via direct messages. The machinations worked, but at a high price: According to a McLaughlin poll, enough Joe Biden voters say they would have changed their votes had they known of the Hunter Biden scandal that they would have produced a solid Trump win. The impression of tech-media-corporate underhandedness will long endure. Article continues... https://nypost.com/2020/12/17/its-time-for-the-deplorables-to-become-the-unconquerables/ Flynn thinks Trump should get radical. The first few paragraphs below: Retired General and Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn comments on his situation, case and pardon, as well as the security of elections in the United States, what he feels about the results and contested cases resulting from November 3rd in an interview with Newsmax TV's Greg Kelly on Thursday. Flynn said President Trump could use "military capabilities" and place them in swing states to "re-run an election." Flynn said while he is not calling for Martial law, the general said he is not opposed to the tactic. He also called Republican leaders who are not backing Trump in his challenge "weak." Flynn, asked if Trump should take "aggressive action" to challenge the election, said the president has to "plan for every eventuality.". Article continues... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ities_to_rerun_elections_in_swing_states.html Looks like signature matching in Georgia is on the menu. The first few paragraphs below: After three recounts, Georgia certified the 2020 presidential election. But on Thursday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced a statewide move to match signatures to their absentee ballots in all 159 counties in the state. The announcement comes just weeks before two Georgia Senate runoff elections on Jan. 5 will determine which party controls the Senate. Raffensperger announced that the signature matching will be done in partnership with the University of Georgia. The study will review a random sample of signatures for mail-in ballots that were cast in the presidential election. "We are confident that elections in Georgia are secure, reliable and effective,” Raffensperger said. “Despite endless lawsuits and wild allegations from Washington, D.C., pundits, we have seen no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud, though we are investigating all credible reports. Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the University of Georgia on this signature match review to further instill confidence in Georgia’s voting systems,” he also said. https://justthenews.com/politics-po...s-signature-matching-review-all-counties-over The above efforts seem futile given the lack of judicial, Democrat, and unified Republican support. However, one confirmed example if election fraud may still blow things wide open. Anyone for some ink tests? Grin.
Let me answer - red states take in more welfare based on their size and income. Why? Because Republicans are less educated and can't prosper in a technology based economy where only few of them in positions of business owners get to reap rewards. This makes most of Republicans dependent on the government which is why they whine all the time about being forgotten. Why are you getting your feelings involved in this, you know this is true.