50 States Secede

[sjfcontrol]

It's funny to me how studies and statistics almost always show exactly what you want them to show and rarely what would be considered the "truth" to an uninterested party.

76% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[VMI77]

I would NEVER put any weight on anything that Rachael Madcow had to say.

That's sort of my point --the fact that she is making the point and has an ideological axe to grind makes the claim questionable from the outset.

[VMI77]

It depends on how you do the math......I wouldn't believe it until I saw the numbers. What is counted as "collecting" and what is counted as "paying." For instance, Rachael Maddow is quoted as saying that Texas "gets a lot more federal spending" than it pays in Taxes. That kind of statement raises a red flag from the start.

Have you ever looked at the budget for the State of Texas? Below is a link to an easy to read pie chart for the 2010-2011 budget. Last year 37% of the state budget came from the federal government. This years budget it was down to 31.5%, still a pretty significant portion of our state spending.

http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/budget ... comes-from

The idea that we are the only ones pulling our weight around here is not exactly accurate. Our state does pretty well for itself when it comes to bringing home the federal dollars. I have found studies and charts saying we bring home more than we pay and others saying we bring home less, so I won't post any of them because they are unreliable. It's funny to me how studies and statistics almost always show exactly what you want them to show and rarely what would be considered the "truth" to an uninterested party.

The claim that Texas gets back more than it pays out is intended to show dependency on the Federal government. It's a political claim and I pointed out above how easily it can be manipulated, and that without knowing exactly how it's determined and from whom the money flows out and to whom the money flows back, it's essentially meaningless. That link doesn't really shed any light because it doesn't itemize outflows or inflows. Illegal immigration is a big cost to this state....it should cost the state NOTHING since the Feds claim that immigration is a FEDERAL issue. And it's true to a large extent....immigration is a national issue, so any money from the Feds that comes into this state in compensation for costs imposed by immigrants should not be counted as a "benefit" to the state, yet it's pretty clear that is exactly what's happening.

I don't know what the true financial situation is because the details necessary to make a judgement aren't available to me. However, it seems pretty certain that the numbers have been determined in a way that serves a political purpose --fostering the notion of dependency on the Federal government. Expressing myself in a different way, all I'm saying is that if all Federal money and presence, in and out, was magically eliminated overnight, the State of Texas would be better off both economically and financially, not worse off. The elimination of Federal regulation alone would be a huge economic boost. My industry has been drowning in Federal regulation that didn't even exist ten years ago --and these costs of the Federal government are not included in the determination of supposed benefit (and this is true for every industry and business in the state). And I haven't even touched on other Federal boondoggles, like wind power, that being heavily subsidized by Federal tax dollars, is counted as a "benefit" or inflow to the state when it actually is a net outflow and double charge to consumers (who pay huge subsidies in taxes and still have to pay for wind power at the highest rate of thermal generation).