Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I looked  at the numbers because I was curious if your implied claim held any water:

"In fiscal year 2020 (October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020), the US government allocated $51.05 billion US dollars in economic and military assistance to foreign countries. Of this total, $39.41 billion dollars was spent on economic assistance, $25.64 billion of which was dispersed by USAID. The remaining $11.64 billion dollars was spent on military assistance" - Wikipedia

"The U.S. government's total revenue is estimated to be $4.71 trillion for FY 2023... (State taxes are not in this number, just federal)

And math:   51 050 000 000. divided by  4 710 000 000 000 = 0.0108 or, as a percent, 1.08%

Your bucket's got a hole in it, Richard.

Dave

Apples and oranges David, you should know better.   Please match the revenue and assistance time frames.   Your assistance numbers are in the heart of the pandemic too.  I found the graphic below interesting. And this is before donated weapons systems!   Good source too.  Do you reckon the US has doubled its worldwide assistance between '20 and '22? It's possible I suppose.   And what's up with you Canadians?  Don't you care about the Ukrainians?  At least you beat France.

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Originally Posted by James Brown

Apples and oranges David, you should know better.   Please match the revenue and assistance time frames.   Your assistance numbers are in the heart of the pandemic too.  I found the graphic below interesting. And this is before donated weapons systems!   Good source too.  Do you reckon the US has doubled its worldwide assistance between '20 and '22? It's possible I suppose.   And what's up with you Canadians?  Don't you care about the Ukrainians?  At least you beat France.

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Here is another great graphic.  Whether or not you are in favor of supporting the Ukrainians, the US is into it to the tune of over 70 Billion Euros.  We are a rich country, and hopefully we can afford it.   FWIW, Canada is in 9th place by GDP.  


https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

OK, James.  Same fiscal year for both numbers: I found total US revenue for 2020 of 3.4 trillion in 2020, and the 51.05 billion from my OP still stands.

So my math becomes 51.05 billion divided by 3.4 trillion which yields  1.5%  instead of the 1.08% I stated in my O.P.  

I think my point was that the percentage is small.  1.08% and 1.5% are both tiny percentages.

Canada's numbers (since someone brought it up) for 2020:  revenue 166.75 Billion CAD, foreign aid 6.6 Billion CAD =  3.96%
2020 was the last 'normal' fiscal year before things went hairy with Covid and now the Ukraine war...

Bucket still leaking...

Dave

Call me "Jim" please, we've know each other a long time!  

According to this very authoritative looking web page, Canadian foreign aid was 1.0% of the budget in 2020 and 1.6% of the budget in 2021.  That is a lot different than the 3.96% you calculated!  

http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/#:~:text=Canada's%20international%20assistance%20spending%20increased,1.0%25%20budget%20expenditure%20in%202020.

I agree with your broader underlying point by the way.  The US and other rich countries like Canada spend a lot less on foreign aid than most people think.  I also think it is a worthy expenditure, as I'll explain to Richard in a minute.  Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

JL stated:  Hence Rich's post/meme.


Wrong, my post has nothing to do with Biden's visit.  It has to do with our wasteful gov't spending to other nations overall.  

Is there anything else I can correct you on today?   

The US spends about 1% of the federal budget on other nations.  Of course there is some percentage of waste, graft, and corruption along the way.  But in general, money spent to make the world a safer and more productive place, and money spent to alleviate the suffering of people in the poorest of nations is not money wasted, in my view.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Also, red states are far more dependent on federal tax dollars than blue states. Many red states would be in trouble if not for those government-worshipping communists in California and other wealthy GDP-busting blue states. 

Point 1:

Take farm and energy production subsidies out of the mix James, and is there still a red/blue difference?  I would bet not.  So, if the Californians spend a bit more per capita to support farming and energy production in red states (and also in their home state of California), that makes sense to me. 

Given that the alternative is for those bastards in California to slowly starve while they freeze (or bake to death) in the dark!  

Point 2:

If the red states do receive more in aid, how much of that is payable to historically poor former slave states?  I have a hunch, and if my hunch is correct, extra payments into those poorest states seems like a reasonable and humane federal policy.  The industrial and tech revolutions did not treat each state equally.

Point 3.  

I am not sure that the accepted maxim of red states being more dependent is still true.  I did not do a deep dive, but the data here shows that  Federal funding per resident is scattershot across red and blue states (I sorted in Excel) https://balancingeverything.com/most-federally-dependent-states/


 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Point 3.  

I am not sure that the accepted maxim of red states being more dependent is still true.  I did not do a deep dive, but the data here shows that  Federal funding per resident is scattershot across red and blue states (I sorted in Excel) https://balancingeverything.com/most-federally-dependent-states/


 

The pages that beat the drum of red states being welfare recipients the loudest always compare federal funding per dollar in taxes paid, as I tabulated below.  Like this oft-quoted smug law professor:  https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Isn't this another way of saying that rich states pay more taxes and get less assistance?  Same as rich people pay more taxes and certainly get less direct assistance.  Of course it is.  Personally, I think the better metric is federal funding per capita.  And there this red state/blue state maxim breaks down.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Based on the chart you presented Jim.....It would certainly appear as usual Lacey pulled a statement right out of his ass when he tried to claim it was red states that were eating up the most federal dollars. lol

It is not that simple Greg.  See my next post.  As usual the devil is in the details.  Is the key metric federal spending per capita, or federal spending per tax dollar received?   I'll have one more chart in a minute.

Originally Posted by James Brown

It is not that simple Greg.  See my next post.  As usual the devil is in the details.  Is the key metric federal spending per capita, or federal spending per tax dollar received?   I'll have one more chart in a minute.

OK, last chart - By my calculations (assuming the input data is accurate, I have no way of knowing)  The average red state gets $10,500 in federal funds per resident.  The average blue state gets $9500 in federal funds per resident.  Not that different.  

The average red state gets $2.37 in federal funds per dollar collected.  The average blue state gets $1.93 per dollar collected.  A bit more difference here, but this tracks state income pretty well.  The blue states are somewhat richer on average.

But think about these numbers.  Federal funding is approximately 2x the amount of taxes collected?  We are so screwed. 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

PS: "Blue states pay more than their fair share. Here are the receipts"
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/01/22/blue-states-pay-more-than-their-fair-share-here-are-the-receipts-column/

This is a representative analysis of tax dollars paid in vs. federal benefits paid out I was talking about above.  Yes, the blue states are where the rich live, and they pay most of the taxes.   The red states are poorer.   I think this is the wrong analysis by the way, as noted above, but I guess it does give the blue state crowd some ammunition to gloat over, assuming the numbers are presented as above.

Peeling back one more layer of the onion, what does it say about the presumably liberal author of an article like this when he is offended that poor states and the poor people living in poor states receive more federal aid than the rich people living in rich states?  Strikes me as hypocritical.   

Yes, I know that the Republicans calling for a welfare cut when their constituents benefit the most is hypocritical too.  Plenty of hypocrisy to go around in Washington DC.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

A scientific assessment on a myriad of factors:
https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/

First "sentience" is not "science."  Also, these are not factors, if factors means root causes.  These are economic and social indicators curated by a biased author to prove his point.  

I waded through this.  I even looked at the non-economic indicators.  I think I can sum it up pretty well: 

1.  Blue states have more rich people. (See the authors economic indicators).
2.  Rich people have better quality of life than poor people, at least according to this author's chosen metrics. (See the author's quality of life indicators).

I am guessing that this is the least profound thing I have ever posted.  Look at these metrics yourself, see if you disagree.  Jim