Jindall Understands

[Franco]

Jindall's a hack with presidential aspirations (as is the SC governor). He'll sacrifice his state to appeal to right wing national voters. But if another hurricane comes, he'll be the first to come to the public assistance trough.

I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

You have got to be on crack.

Poor as Louisiana? Less than 3% unemployment and the third largest oil revenues in the country. The only thing poor in Louisiana is all the Democrats wanting the Feds to take care of them! A mentallity born of the Democrats.

You want poor states, look at California as the illegals wreck that state. Or, how about New York State with all those great liberal minds. Didn't Michigan vote for Obomo too and look at all those Dems wanting a Federal handout!

Socialism doesn't work, never has and never will!

[backpasture]

You have got to be on crack.

Poor as Louisiana? Less than 3% unemployment and the third largest oil revenues in the country.

Don't tell us your state is a model of capitalism and self sufficiency when it is one of the top recipients of our tax dollars.

For every $1.00 that Lousiana sends to the federal government, it receives $1.78.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

And, the states that you are harping on ALL send more money to the federal government than they receive.

Maybe your governor can refuse those tax dollars, too, so your state can finally get off the dole. And, while he's at it maybe he can refuse the other 3.8 BILLION of our tax dollars that are coming your way as part of the stimulus bill.

[Franco]

For every $1.00 that Lousiana sends to the federal government, it receives $1.78.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

.

Most of that money is going to New Orleans, not the state! Over half-a-million homes were underwater in 05 due to a hurricane. The state is doing just fine and much better since we got rid of Dem. Gov. K Blanco!

[backpasture]

Most of that money is going to New Orleans, not the state!

Two problems with your argument:
1) These numbers are pretty consistent historically. Southern states get more money from the federal government, and have for many years.
2) These numbers are for money paid to the STATE, not to any municipalities.

To argue that the money goes to the city of New Orleans and not the state is disingenuous anyway. Last time I checked the city of New Orleans was in the state of Lousiana, so money going to that city is going to your state.

Over half-a-million homes were underwater in 05 due to a hurricane.

So, you do you or don't you want federal money to help clean up that mess? If you don't want it, then don't use that as an excuse for why we are sending so many of our tax dollars your way. If you DO want it, then your entire argument is moot.

[Franco]

The reason N O hasn't fully recoverd is because you have the Democrats of the city waiting on the money. Most others have gone on with their lives and have either rebuilt or moved on. IT IS THE DEMS WAITING FOR THE GOV TO TAKE CARE OF THEM where rebuilding hasn't happened! Yes, it goes through the state but, it is EARMARKED for the city.

If the Feds didn't help, then guess what? The people would have to be mentally tougher and get it done thenselves! As it is now, the Dems have created the entitilement mentallity that started with Dem. President LBJ.

[Hew]

Two problems with your argument:
1) These numbers are pretty consistent historically. Southern states get more money from the federal government, and have for many years.
2) These numbers are for money paid to the STATE, not to any municipalities.

RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

[Uncle Bill]

Holy Moly, Hew! Now you did it. He's bound to fall off the fence with that knowledge, and all the king's men will never put him together again.

Come to think of it, we all thank you. But it's not fair to point out the facts. Like I mentioned to Henry about all the $$$ spent by the feds in our state to benefit the members on the Res.

Guess all we can do is try.

UB

[backpasture]

RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

It is actually a combination, as a good chunk is for block grants, federal matching funds, etc.

The only reason I make these arguments is to point out how silly it is for Jindall to be grandstanding about refusing stimulus money.

It pales in comparison to the the hypocrisy in claiming he is not taking stimulus bill money when he is, in fact, taking 97.5% of the stimulus money coming to his state. It's pure political grandstanding.

[Henry V]

RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

Federal spending in these reports is the total amount of federal dollars returned to the state PERIOD. LA and many other states consistently and historically get substantially more federal dollars returned to their state than they pay in.

AS it says in the linked report:

Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.

It all seems pretty straightforward though, federal dollars in versus federal dollars out.

[Henry V]

It pales in comparison to the the hypocrisy in claiming he is not taking stimulus bill money when he is, in fact, taking 97.5% of the stimulus money coming to his state. It's pure political grandstanding.

BP. You will have to wait a long time for an answer for this. It is much easier to blame the messenger or steer the discussion somewhere else. Why do you even try anymore?