Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

Once again, are you reading these tables? Or just assuming you know what's in them? Because your link (once again) flat out contradicts you.

Yes. Did you read what I wrote? New York received $157,789,000,000, whereas North Dakota received $6,766,000,000. New York received over 23 times more federal funds.

On an individual basis, maybe. But in sum, the NY bridge is a thousand times as valuable. Demolishing it would inconvenience a thousand times as many people. If they cost the same to build and maintain, then the cost-benefit analysis is obvious.

Right, so the New Yorkers should be able to finance their valuable bridge, whereas the North Dakotans will need to suffer for awhile to raise the funds, or do without. This is entirely fair.

And yet, they need more infrastructure to provide the same level of services.

Why should Fargo get the same level of services as New York City? If it's important to them, they'll fund it. If they lack the population to be able to afford it, then let them attract growth. If they can't then why would we invest money there? I don't believe in building Xanadu in the middle of the wilderness.

Good deal for Alaskans. Bad deal for everyone else.

Hence, why I feel federal expenditures for states are wrong.