3 ms·

That's an odd interpretation with considerable bad-faith assumptions. The plan is to take federal money and use it to help re-build large portions of the countr

That's an odd interpretation with considerable bad-faith assumptions. The plan is to take federal money and use it to help re-build large portions of the country that include valuable industries and have been completely neglected. Funny enough, most Rust Belt states are net payers to the Federal Government [1]. Illinois, the "corrupt state" everyone wants to rail on, is one of the least dependent on Federal money in the entire country. They get $0.75 back for every dollar of taxes sent to the Feds [2]. For comparison, Mississippi gets $2.02 for every dollar in Federal taxes. Please explain how they would be "taking money from other taxpayers" under this plan? [1] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... [2] https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/ftsbs-timeseries...

logfromblammo 8y ago
Thus it would likely suffice to just use federal prosecutions to burn the corruption out of the local governments, remove the legacies of past corruption, and let the remaining citizens try again from scratch. There's plenty of economic activity still there, enough to support a new government. But that can't govern if 105% of its budget is still going to pay off the contracts and covenants put in place by the old, corrupt government. Illinois has already proven willing to send its own governors to prison, so imagine what could be accomplished without the constraint that the investigation has to end before it traces all the way back to the investigators.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==Thus it would likely suffice to just use federal prosecutions to burn the corruption out of the local governments, remove the legacies of past corruption, and let the remaining citizens try again from scratch.== What is this based on? Why isn't the solution to use federal investigators to determine why certain states aren't paying enough taxes to cover their costs? That sounds kind of "corrupt" to me.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Probably because federal funds go out mainly according to population counts, and taxes come in based on who makes the most money. The places that spend more taxes than they remit are either too poor to pay more tax, or they have relentlessly selfish representatives that won't vote yes on anything unless it also includes a job for their district. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      ==Probably because federal funds go out mainly according to population counts== This isn't true at all. California, Texas, New York and Illinois are 4 of the 6 largest states by population and all of them pay more in taxes then they receive back from the government. ==they have relentlessly selfish representatives that won't vote yes on anything unless it also includes a job for their district.== Is this not a form of corruption?

logfromblammo 8y ago

Thus it would likely suffice to just use federal prosecutions to burn the corruption out of the local governments, remove the legacies of past corruption, and let the remaining citizens try again from scratch. There's plenty of economic activity still there, enough to support a new government. But that can't govern if 105% of its budget is still going to pay off the contracts and covenants put in place by the old, corrupt government. Illinois has already proven willing to send its own governors to prison, so imagine what could be accomplished without the constraint that the investigation has to end before it traces all the way back to the investigators.

moorhosj 8y ago
==Thus it would likely suffice to just use federal prosecutions to burn the corruption out of the local governments, remove the legacies of past corruption, and let the remaining citizens try again from scratch.== What is this based on? Why isn't the solution to use federal investigators to determine why certain states aren't paying enough taxes to cover their costs? That sounds kind of "corrupt" to me.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Probably because federal funds go out mainly according to population counts, and taxes come in based on who makes the most money. The places that spend more taxes than they remit are either too poor to pay more tax, or they have relentlessly selfish representatives that won't vote yes on anything unless it also includes a job for their district. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    ==Probably because federal funds go out mainly according to population counts== This isn't true at all. California, Texas, New York and Illinois are 4 of the 6 largest states by population and all of them pay more in taxes then they receive back from the government. ==they have relentlessly selfish representatives that won't vote yes on anything unless it also includes a job for their district.== Is this not a form of corruption?