So if I were running the USPS like a business, I wouldn’t go out of my way to service less populated areas.
I’m sure “rural America” would love that. The same for Amtrak.
I’m sure “rural America” would love that. The same for Amtrak.
How much of "rural America" is using Amtrak to get around? Their route map seems to indicate all their stations are in urban areas. It's not like they stop in every one-horse town.
As I understand it the ones really using it to get places are the Northeast Corridor, and the rest is mainly rail fans taking the land equivalent of a cruise ship.
it is moronic to claim other wise. People that continue to make this claim clearly do not understand how to run a business at all, and are operating under this weird anti-capitalism rhetoric...
as for Amtrak, I would be in-favor of a complete shutdown of that service, the USPS has some albeit limited constitutional basis for its existence, Amtrak does not
Anyone uses that as a justification for anything is just further perpetuating partisan divids not looking for solutions to any public policy problems
So is that you? Just a partisan hack seeing through the my tribe good lens of party politics
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
https://www.governing.com/finance/Are-Republican-States-More...
Just like old people on Medicare who are against “government run healthcare”.
They fail because they treat military spending incorrectly. Military is deploy based on the strategic needs of the nation, it is incorrect then simply include military related spending in a state, with the taxes collected from the state. This will always impact the results in favor or more dense states as military spending is often inverse to population density for obvious reasons.
The other failing is using the child tax credit as the basis for "Individual Dependency", aside from that being absurd on its face the idea then that you want to use people taking their legal tax credit passed by democrats to make a political point it just insanity
Again these "lol Red States need federal money" stories are partisan hack jobs that cherry pick data, and do not actually prove anything nor can they be used to make commentary on political policy, or anything.
People using them, reporting on them, or other wise engaging with them are either showing a lack of basic economic reasoning skills, or are partisan hacks looking for confirmation of their own person bias.
Which are you?
My guess is you just read the head lines, maybe the story but never actually look into the methodology or underlying goals of the people creating these "studies" (and I use that term loosely) because it confirms our personal bias you simply listen and believe
So the Red States should be okay with
The “Military Times” for what’s it’s worth, is not a left leaning site by any means
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/04/19/...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-iss...
And it doesn’t matter as far as the child tax credit. It still means that the federal government is spending more in the state than it gets in. Which state would be better off if it didn’t have to pay federal tax for anything except the military -California or Mississippi?
The same argument as far as tax credits could be used for welfare benefits. They are just taking advantage of money that they are legally entitled to. Would conservatives agree with that argument?