cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Election results

I noticed that the map was all about percentages of State funding, and not in dollars, or amount of aid per capita.   I wonder why that is?

Could it be that the States who recieve the least Federal aid, as a %, spend so much more, that the aid is a smaller portion of their budget?

 

 For example, we can take my home State of Nebraska, which Ag's chart says says gets 34.2% of their State funding Via Federal $$

Now, go to #1 on the Liberal list, Mass, which gets 28.8%, of its funding via the Federal Gov't.

 

Now, go to another chart I found, where you can punch in 2 States, and compare per capita total State spending.

 

I ask you, which adds up to more Federal spending/aid, per citizen:  34.2% of $5439, or 28.8% of $8597?

 

Location Per Capita State Spending
Massachusetts $8,597
Nebraska $5,439
Senior Contributor

Re: Election results

In another post you asked Newfagjudge to look at facts....now you're asking"bart to do the same.

 

You're asking them to look beyond the talking point kool aid

 

 

Senior Advisor

Re: Election results


@man of steel wrote:

In another post you asked Newfagjudge to look at facts....now you're asking"bart to do the same.

 

You're asking them to look beyond the talking point kool aid

 

 


They don't do facts, they just know.