$15,033,607,255,920.32 in debt

It’s official — we passed the $15 trillion in federal debt milestone. How do you feel? And when do you think we’ll start reversing this trend?

132 Replies to “$15,033,607,255,920.32 in debt”

  1. Anonymous

    As soon as psuedo conservatives at the state level quit voting to take stimulus and other “free” money from the feds.

  2. cornerstone

    I’m with you on that. But I think those days are over now that SHS isn’t there to get it for us and Rounds and Noem aren’t in Pierre to accept it again.

  3. Stace Nelson

    I do not think that is a fair criticism for either Governor Round or Congresswoman Noem. The decision was made by the legislature and accepted by Governor Rounds.

    I think they would have been remiss in their duties if they had not accepted BACK some of the tax monies taken from South Dakotans. The federal government is only supposed to take what is needed to do that which we cannot do ourselves, defense of this country being primary. It is not a charity.

    By accepting monies South Dakotans have paid into the federal government back, the federal government was not able to create another department we don’t need and the state was able to keep taxes low.

    Not an ideal situation, I will agree.

    1. BF

      Tsk. Don’t tell me you’re claiming SD is not a net beneficiary state, Stace. Pretty sure we got back quite a bit more from the Fed than we put in that year, and for many years prior. If anybody had money “coming back” as you suggest, it would be those states whose outlays have consistently exceeded their return in Federal dollars. Nice try though.

      1. Stace Nelson

        There has never been a detailed accounting of every penny South Dakotans send in via income tax , fuel tax, etc. Additionally, our gross output is WAY more than our consumption. Clearly, South Dakotans carry well more than their load of things in supporting this great country.

        But go ahead, ignore the facts and claim SD is a welfare state dependent on the federal government. Who am I to stand in the way of brilliant Democratic election campaign rhetoric. 😀

        1. BF

          South Dakota is a beneficiary state, not a donor state. This is widely known. Your refusal to admit it borders on delusional. But then, I’ve come to expect that from you.

          1. SN

            “SD has only .26% (814, 180) of the total US population (308,745,538); however, SD roughly produces 2.02% of the total yearly US Ag production: http://www.stuffaboutstates.com/agriculture/index.html

            That alone shatters your ideas that SD is somehow a welfare state of the federal government, the facts are that South Dakotans carry near 10 times their weight in just this one area. “

            1. BF

              I didn’t say SD was a welfare state, I said it was a net beneficiary state. Again, this is a known fact, not a debate topic.

              1. BF

                I think Stace would argue that “orange” is really “turquoise” if it was a Democrat who told him what the color of hunting vests are.

                1. SN

                  Stop yer whining Billy, you put up outdated incomplete information and you expect people to swallow your normal faulty logic because you say so. Your liberalism is not being debated, it is your faulty claims.

                  The facts show that the USA is a beneficiary of South Dakota’s Ag production and that you have provided no actual facts to support your claims other than an incomplete out dated map.

                  1. BF

                    I’m not whining, Stace. You are simply defeating your own arguments. If SD is so productive, why is it being disproportionately subsidized relative to the donor states? You’re not making any sense here.

                    1. BF

                      Here is the data from 1981 to 2005 for all states, Stace. If you claim the data is inaccurate, please supply evidence as to which year between 2005 and present, SD went from being a benefactor state to a donor state. You have yet to satisfactorily refute the data I have provided.
                      And with good reason.

                      Facts is facts.

                      And they are even more stubborn than you are.

                    2. SN

                      You claim we are being subsidized! Provided a detailed accounting and explanation of every dime taken from South Dakotans by the federal government along with a detailed accounting of where every dime you claim comes back. Until then, just more of the same BF BS.

                    3. BF

                      No need to provide additional data. I have provided sufficient data that you are unable to refute. Data no one seems to dispute but you. Not surprising. It’s not the first time you’ve presented as being delusional.

                    4. SN

                      Still waiting for the detailed accounting. A figure without details is worthless. Additionally, you forget that $.40 of every dollar spent by federal government is BORROWED! So, South Dakotans are receiving less than the monies they paid in actually back; however, they are getting $. 60 borrowed from China on the money from federal government!

                    5. BF

                      The facts are on the table, Stace. Spin them any way you like. That China thinge is pretty good. Now you’ve got BOTH California AND China subsidizing South Dakota. Hilarious!

                  2. BF

                    Endorsements for the source I’ve used:

                    Praise for the Tax Foundation

                    “The [Tax] Foundation?s distinguished record of accomplishment should be a source of pride to its members, who deserve the thanks of all our citizens for their dedication to a task which contributes so much to the effective functioning of the American democratic system.” ?President John F. Kennedy
                    “Commendations to the Tax Foundation for its 65th Anniversary! The Tax Foundation
                    has continued to serve the indispensable function of providing unbiased tax information.” ?James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate in Economics”
                    Facts and Figures on Government Finance is the most detailed and useful statistical portrait of where the spending goes and how it is financed.” ?Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics
                    “[The Tax Foundation’s] tireless efforts to educate the public about America’s tax burden have made a big difference here in Washington, and throughout the fifty states. Our tax policies are better for it, and our economy is stronger.” ?U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow
                    “Through its outreach efforts and programs such as Tax Freedom Day, the Tax Foundation strives to promote tax reform designed to lessen the tax burden that Americans face today…. And I am grateful for the vast assistance and support that the Tax Foundation provided over the years in the battle for reform.” ?Dick Armey, Former Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives


                    I’m sure YOU think you know more about this than the people listed above, but I don’t. Most people don’t. You shouldn’t even be arguing this. It’s like arguing that the sun doesn’t come up in the morning.

                    1. SN

                      Well heck Billy Boy, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics” A liar can use numbers to tell any story they want.

                      Thus the reasonable request for you to show the actual detailed accounting of the money flow.

        2. BF

          I am only arguing that SD takes more Federal dollars in, than it pays out. Period. I think that’s a known, indisputable fact. If you feel a need to be irrationally insecure and embarrassed about it Stace, that’s your problem, not mine.

          I make no value judgement on it one way or the other.

          It’s just the way it is. And has been for decades.

          1. SN

            As indicated by South Dakota’s massive contribution to USA Ag production, there are many things to be considered in the balance sheet besides the cherry picking data you would impose on the issue.

          2. BF

            I’m kind of curious about Stace’s “total accounting” idea, I have to admit. I wonder if he’s going to take into account all the sales tax and other revenue generated by people coming to the Black Hills to see a sculpture of US Presidents on their way to a National Monument and a National Park in Wyoming. I hear the “population” of SD increases by a factor of 5 in the summer months. That’s a lot of “out of state” dough, don’t you think, Stace?

            Then we’ve got your Federal Air Force bases, the US Forest Service, Oahe Reservoir, Gavins Point Dam… the Badlands… The Money to the Tribes…. you know, Stace, maybe we should just stick with my original numbers, huh?

              1. BF

                I’m curious about Stace’s ag deal here. Is he trying to say the farmers just GIVE that ag product away? I’m seeing it producing around $7 billion annually. How is selling our ag product “donating” to any other state? And what about the subsidies? Who does that benefit? The buyer, or the seller?

                I’m really having a hard time understanding what Nelson’s getting at here. It was so simple when I laid it out in the first place. South Dakota takes in more FROM the Fed than it pays out TO the Fed. Pretty self-evident if you ask me. But then, Stace has been known to have a problem with those pesky self-evident truths, I recon. Maybe I’ll just let him stew over it. It’s obvious he’s not interested in listening to reason.

                1. SN

                  BS errr, BF.. Your claims are built on sinking sand as the USA does not have a balanced budget. Your claims that SD is subsidized by other states would require that in order for your statement to be true. The fact is the US borrows $.40 of every dollar spent. Under your claims, SD receives back only $.80 of whatever taxes are considered in your statistics AND it receives $.60 of borrowed monies. Not unlike any of the other states.

                  If you can’t understand your own degeated logic, that is on you.

                  1. BF

                    It doesn’t make any difference at all if the money is borrowed, Stace.

                    It’s still the WHOLE US paying it back.

                    Meanwhile, SD is getting a larger proportionate share than most other states, even as their GDP per capita is approximately proportionate to the % of SD pop to the whole.


                    There are so many holes in your reasoning here it would be hard to count them all.

                    Why don’t you just call it a day, Stace? You have nothing here. You don’t even know what it is you are trying to argue.

                    1. SN

                      Sure it matters if the money is borrowed as it defeats the very agruments that you have been making.

                      Nothing is ever simple, well accept for your reasoning abilities; however, I digress.

                      Clearly it matters what data is included in figuring what tax revenues are considered and where the returned monies are going in the scheme of a financial balance sheet.

                      For example, monies returned to SD for federal highways mutually benefit the interestate trade of numerous states.

                      A detailed accounting would probably show other such issues. Sorry to bust your liberal bubble.

    2. Anonymous

      Stace: Quit rationalizing. State government is just as responsible as the our liberal friends in Washington. $750 billion of this $15 trillion was stimulus of South Dakota’s welfare state. We are just as guilty as Obama.

  4. Stace Nelson

    P.S. Thank you BF for making the point of the article, the federal government is ONLY supposed to take in enough monies to do that which we cannot do ourselves. The fact that it is involved in everything from excess cheese to research of African mating hygiene makes the point clear that our federal government is out of control and needs massive cuts.

      1. SN

        SD has only .26% (814, 180) of the total US population (308,745,538); however, SD roughly produces 2.02% of the total yearly US Ag production: http://www.stuffaboutstates.com/agriculture/index.html

        That alone shatters your ideas that SD is somehow a welfare state of the federal government, the facts are that South Dakotans carry near 10 times their weight in just this one area.

        Your outdated map provides no details. Try providing one which shows TOTAL taxes taken from South Dakotans, and an accurate accounting of the monies claimed returned. Even then, when one brfeaks down the figures, it is clear that South Dakotans carry a lot more than their weight.

        1. BF

          No sale, Stace. California supplies a far greater % of the US food supply than SD does, and still helps pick up part of SD’s tab. You lose by your own argument.

          1. SN

            You presume that your outdated map is all inclusive of the data to make that determination, I don’t.

            CA’s population is 37,253,956 or 12.2% of 308,745,538 and they produce enough Ag to barely feed themselves at 13.2% of the total US Ag production.

            So, again… South Dakota carrys almost 10 times it’s weight in AG production per capita which clearly shows it is not the dependent state that you claim.

            Show a detailed accounting of ALL the taxes taken from South Dakotans alongside whatever federal returns you claim come back to SD. Until then, it is all speculative on your part.

            1. BF

              So you’re saying that SD has a higher per capita GDP in Ag and yet Califorinia and other states are subsidizing us? If so, yes, correct, that is what I have been saying. You keep providing evidence that defeats your own argument.

                1. BF

                  Of course they are. If they weren’t, California wouldn’t be paying out more than it receives and SD vice versa.

  5. Anonymous

    Evidently republican friends its hard to figure out that we are the benifit of the fed Govt.Low pay in a low paid state.Let us change our motto .We came to die not to buy.

  6. Bruce Whalen

    If you want to see what Big Government does to a community come to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and I’ll show you around. Think twice if you believe this can’t happen to you.

  7. Anonymous

    Soon we will all be living in third-world conditions. Stace, quit rationalizing. The state of south dakota took more than $750 billion of stimulus. We are just as much to blame as the socialists in Washington.

  8. Charlie Hoffman

    Bruce you are never too old to run again. Think what would happen in this country if we could put the Indian Nation on a level playing field with USA Inc. main street commerce and incorporate all the reservation land and people into the mainstream economic machine we all take for granted?

    I truly do love your honesty and loved hearing you speak in Eureka long ago when obviously few in SD were listening. Godspeed on your journey friend.

  9. BF

    ?This country does in fact have a serious deficit problem. But the reality is that the deficit was caused by two wars ? unpaid for. It was caused by huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. It was caused by a recession as result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And if those are the causes of the deficit, I will be damned if we?re going to balance the budget on backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor. That?s wrong.? ? Rep. Bernie Sanders to the Congressional Budget Committee

    1. Anon by Any Other Name...

      “This country does in fact have a serious deficit problem. The reality is that the deficit was caused by too many people in Congress that believe the federal government should be involved in every facet of Americans’ lives. People that have thrown Americans’ hard earned monies away and indebted our nation to a country that wishes us ill. It is the reckless & illegal behavior of Congress which has violated our Constitution in believing they are entitled to our liberties that our hard monies represent. That is what is wrong! A pox on the fools such as Bernie Sanders for the harm they have done with their socialist ideas & agendas.” An American Man

      1. BF

        The difference between your assertion and Sanders’ is that his contains a series of facts leading to a rational conclusion and a coherent moral imperative. The statement of the problem in terms of cause and effect and a recommendation of a just solution.

        Yours on the other hand is simply a paranoid construct followed by an irrational “shoot-the-messenger” ad hominem attack.

        One can read Sanders and take his point. Yours is incomprehensible gobbledygook.

        For example, what on earth does this train wreck of words mean: “…behavior of Congress which has violated our Constitution in believing they are entitled to our liberties that our hard monies represent.”?


        It’s gobbledygook.

        1. Anon by Any Other Name...

          Ahh, the foul fowl of DWC. Here (,,,), satisfied? For one who types such lame tripe as you, to include the idiotic quote from the scoundrel Sanders, you should keep your pebbles from bouncing around lest they shatter the glass pup tent you live in.

          1. BF

            Wow. I just noticed that if you take this guy’s post here, select out every third word, then count all the letters up and divide by 7, you will have actually derived even more meaning than you would if you just counted all the words and doubled them.

            This is quite astonishing, since both methods provide significantly more meaning than the mere words themselves in sequence do here, if simply taken at face value.

  10. Anonymous

    It makes no difference of who to blame as it is really all D and R elected and appointed officials of country, state, county, city and even the TWP. Quite accepting and spending and crooked accounting. Balance the tax rules so all people are equal not supporting a few selected groups.

    It is fixable if EVERYONE has the ability to want to FIX the problem. 97% of elected and appointed gov officials do not have the want to fix…………….. D or R…………………

    1. BF

      I would be happy to reconsider Mr. Nelson’s opinion that day=night any time he wishes to proffer it. I suspect I will continue to find it ludicrous, however, as should any rational thinker.

      1. SN

        It is your OPINION that this state, this great country, is something less than what it is. While you are entitled to your asinine opinions, it does not make them facts to those of us who are sensible enough to know the difference.

        You keep hating this great country Billy Boy. Never fear, guys like me will continue to defend her so guys like you can protest in safety. 😀 Bwwwaaaahahahahahaha!

        1. CaveMan

          There are few who defend every truism they find not perfect irrelevant; SN you are one of those who do so with passion and pride. For that we must all thank you; for few would do so regardless of what the masses believe and think true.

  11. BF

    It is my observation that the State of South Dakota takes in more Federal dollars than it pays in, and is thus a beneficiary state.

    I have made no judgement regarding this fact.

    Mine is not a subjective commentary, but rather a statement of fact which you, Mr. Nelson, have been unable to refute because it is irrefutable.

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it.
    It doesn’t even matter if you refuse to accept it.
    It is what it is.

    Facts are stubborn things.
    Even more stubborn than you are.

    There is no protest in my observation, nor any attempt to diminish our state or our country in any way whatsoever.

    I will say though, that if your idea of convincing yourself and others that you are a good American is to endeavor to demean and bully your fellow countrymen, you have missed the whole point of the American democratic experiment.

    Even so, I would never claim that you are a bad American for it.

    Just a stupid one.

    1. SN

      The FACT is that it is your OPINION that SD is a “beneficiary state.” To support your OPINION you cite cherry picked data, that you cannot even provide full details on, as your “facts.” I know that is a blow to your egocentric self consumed idea of yourself; however, your OPINIONS are not facts just because you edict as so.

      Your character, liberal ideas, and past comments, indict who you are, not me.

      Stupid? I am not the ignoramous who thinks his OPINIONS are are facts.. 😀

      1. Bruce Whalen

        In earlier posts that total population of South Dakota was used in calculating the argument. At the same time so was revenue generated by farming. Something seems lost in the translation.

        I think that SD takes more than it gives and will happily move from that position if it could be shown in simple terms. Come on people educate me.

  12. BF

    I have provided far more data than you have, Stace. In fact, I have provided the ONLY data. Time to put up or shut up. If you have better information than the above cited Tax Foundation ratios. Please provide it. Otherwise, you have no argument whatsoever.

    Here is some more data for you (from 2007). I suppose you think these numbers are opinions too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

  13. BF

    Here’s a little more data for you Stace. Please let us know to what extent these are just “opinions.” Also please detail for us the source of “Operating Grants and Contributions” on pg. 19 and 20 consists of. (Note these comprise approx. 52% of State government’s total revenue in 2010.)

    THEN, please tell us what % of the State’s sales tax revenue came from out of state tourists. Then we can start talking about the other out of State’s contributions to the State’s economy. Thanks.


  14. SN

    There was a time when educated fools claimed it was a known “fact” that the world was flat because of cherry pickled data that they used to support their opinions and project as fact. To go against their “wisdom” was heresy.

    It is YOUR CLAIM that SD is a net beneficiary. You do so with incomplete data that you claim proves your opinion is fact.

    If your OPINION is fact, show EVERY dime collected from South Dakotans in federal tax revenue alongside a detailed accounting of EVERY dime you claim is returned. You can’t, and then you lamely ask me to prove your claims for you. 😀

    The world is round & SD produces 2.02% of the USA’s total Ag production while making up only .27% of the US population. That means we feed 10 people from NY for every South Dakotan, lot of benefit to them folks with a full belly. 😀

  15. BF

    That ag figure doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about here, Stace.

    It’s completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you’re trying to claim that the ag products were a gift to the rest of the nation and that South Dakotans didn’t receive any compensation for them.

    In fact, in combination with the subsidies on agriculture, it shows money coming IN from other states (and nations) not money going OUT.

    I’m starting to think you are completely clueless.

    (Oh wait, that’s not really true… I’ve actually thought that for quite some time.)

  16. BF

    Still waiting for your BS take on the State budget, the Sales tax revenue, and the % of sales tax coming in from people in other states. Show us how that’s all just a bunch of opinions.

  17. BF

    I see what Troy means about arguing with Stace being like playing with a mouse. After a while, you have to just decide if you’re gonna go ahead and eat it, or just leave it there twitching on the floor.

  18. SN

    BS, you cannot be this clueless, then again you are a life long liberal.

    You are claiming that one set of data makes SD a dependent welfare state. It is a self serving idiotic assertion to further your views as a liberal.

    The actual picture is that SD is a net benefit to the rest of the United States. Some of the federal monies that you count as “returned” to SD are mutually beneficial to other states to include the federal monies recieved for the federal highways in SD, as well as the monies “returned” for Ellsworth AFB.

    A detailed accounting of all the monies you claim submitted or returned would tell that tale.

    Just as you don’t look at only a part of the data to determine whether a business is in the red or the black, it is asinine to assert that a partial look at the data here puts SD in the red.

  19. BF

    I’m sorry it makes you upset Stace, but SD is a net beneficiary state. It receives more federal dollars than it pays in.

    Didn’t say there is anything wrong with that. Just that that’s the way it is.

    Clearly you don’t want what I’m saying to be true. But it is.

    Suck it up and deal with it. There’s no need for you to get emotionally overwrought over an obvious, indisputable fact.

  20. BF

    Readers will note that I have not once used the word “welfare” here, or in any way been critical of the way South Dakota’s economy works. Anyone who is a lifelong resident of South Dakota knows that we rely on the other states for our subsistence on any number of levels. It has been that way all my life, and I’ve never once felt there was anything negative about it.

  21. BF

    I have supplied all the proof my assertion requires, Stace. And you haven’t refuted a bit of it, because it is irrefutable. Your only problem is that you don’t like the truth of it. Well, tough. I can’t help you with that.

    1. SN

      Keep thinking the world is flat, BS.. When you see the world the way you do, no wonder you are the way you are.

  22. BF

    I’m sure Nelson thinks that if he calls me a liberal enough times he can change the fact that the sun rises in the east.

    1. SN

      BS, are you going on a US wide apology tour to promote your ideas about SD like Pres. Obama did about the USA to the world? 😀

  23. Oldguy

    Stace I know what BF is saying and it is true we receive more money from DC than we send safari as tax dollars. Please help me follow your line of thinking. Not trying to get into a debate just trying to understand your position. Thanks

    1. SN

      Oldguy, posted a detailed reply and it got zapped.

      Les hits it partially on the head. Monies “returned” for our National Guard/Reserves deploying? Ellsworth AFB? etc., etc.

      Lastly, his claims that we are “subsidized” by other states would require us to have a balanced budget which we do not have.

      What we do have is a Congress that has a runaway credit card with the Chinese. So if monies are actually “returned” or spent on SD, $ .40 of every $1 spent is borrowed.

      Thus http://www.usdebtclock.org/ and each of our portion of that at $48,073.00 X 814,180 (SD Pop) = $39,316,231,124.80 SD’s total.

      Not sure about you buddy, never knew a debt to be a subsidy..

      1. BF

        No valid argument there. What can be said about one state vis a vis debt to China can be said by all. Notice that Stace only calculates the SD share by the SD population. If he were serious about his argument, he would multiply the SD share by 1.45 since we received a disproportionate share of the funds relative to the other states.

        Les gives an explanation as to why what I am saying is a fact, but doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying is a fact. South Dakota receives more Federal dollars back than it pays in.


        End of discussion.

        1. BF

          p.s. To be crystal clear, Stace’s argument perfectly illustrates my point and reveals the flaw in his reasoning. He’s saying that for every $145 of borrowed money from China South Dakota receives, South Dakotans should only have to pay back $100. Nice loan if you can get it, Stace.

          1. SN

            Are you really that ignorant? That is not what I said.

            What a joke. Your claims that SD is subsidized by other states is proven to be bogus.

  24. Les

    I feel Flem’s argument holds water only because our state is a large land mass with a small population. We have federal roads, many reservations and ag subsidies insuring cheap food/control amongst some of our federal monies received. This hardly equates to being a welfare state with those mandates from above.

    We are a positive producer.

      1. Les

        My argument is not the same as Staces. We are mandated to have US highways including an interstate system for transit by those from the states you say contribute to us.

        There is a federal ag subsidy system in place that puts dollars back into our state ag while a cheaper product exports to those states you say contribute to us.

        We have no say over the dollars sent to the reservations in SD.

        We do receive more fed money than visible tax monies sent, but you would be a fool to believe those are our only costs federal or otherwise.

        1. BF

          Les, I’m tired of arguing this, and I’m tired of being called anti-South Dakota, anti-American, and a fool for stating what most people here agree are obvious facts.

          If you have secret information that proves that South Dakota pays more money out to other states, or the Fed (or the bogey man, or whatever) than it takes in, then by all means, lay it out here.

          This argument arose because Mr. Nelson claimed that the reason South Dakota took the stimulus money is because it had money coming back for taxes paid in for services it either didn’t ? or shouldn’t ? receive.

          I maintain that is a bogus argument, and have argued from that position this entire thread.

          That doesn’t make me a fool, that doesn’t make me a bad South Dakotan, and that doesn’t make me anti-American, so you guys can just drop that bullshit.

          The absence of sufficient refutation from you, Stace, or anyone else here, of the factual evidence I have provided in this thread makes me one thing, and one thing only, as far as this argument is concerned.

          It makes me right and you two gentlemen wrong.

          1. SN

            Somebody get Bill a hanky.

            This is what was said: http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/23328/comment-page-1#comment-128185

            Note, as usual, the tripe Bill types above in his claims is not what was said or how the conversation got started, apply that to the lengthy conversation above and you will get the gist of his credibility.

            Bill went on repeatedly to claim that SD is subsidized by the other states and that we are net beneficiary.

            Always the poor victim, even when it is always you that degrades postings with insults and mischaracterizations of people’s comments.

            You make a claim that you cannot back up with complete data. Others may be willing to accept that partial data as absolute evidence that SD is a net beneficiary, I am not. Especially when there is ample evidence that monies claimed “returned” to SD are of mutual benefit to other states (federal highway monies, National Guard/Reserve deployment costs, Ellsworth, etc.), and SD staggering excess of AG production per capita.

            Bottom-line, we are talking about a complex accounting evaluation of all factors that has not been done. You can accept Bill’s OPINION, based off of partial data, that SD is a net beneficiary state overlly dependent on others in our existence within the USA. Or, you can accept that a consideration of all factors would show that we clearly are on the plus side for our support of this great nation.

            1. BF

              Yes, as per Troy’s overview, if (and only if) you get rid of SD’s Ag industry, don’t count the reservations, don’t drive on the highways, don’t use the public lands and send all the people over 65 to Nebraska, then you can be right right, Stace.

              Otherwise, uhhhh, no.

        1. BF

          Oh really, Stace? Did you read above?

          Les: “There is a federal ag subsidy system in place that puts dollars back into our state ag while a cheaper product exports to those states you say contribute to us.”

  25. anonymous

    Stace, give it up. Flem has you on this one. Also please don’t call people unamerican simply because they have a different opinion than you. I know this probably won’t stop you from doing that. Was also wondering, what “cherry picked” data supported the notion that the world was flat?

    1. SN

      Just because one makes a claim with partial data does not make it so. I never said such a thing; however, if the shoe fits though.

      Crack a history book and review why people thought the world was flat and attacked those who thought it wasn’t.

      1. BF

        I read that history book, Stace. It was because the Pope and the Church had irrational religious beliefs and refused to listen to scientific reason and acknowledge obvious, demonstrable, empirical facts. Sound familiar?

        1. Troy Jones

          Bill, that isn’t accurate. The Galileo issue wasn’t about the world being flat and it is was much more complex than is commonly understood. In the end, it was a problem with ego’s and not science or religion.

            1. BF


              St Vergilius of Salzburg (c.700 ? 784), in the middle of the eighth century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas which St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary’s reply, dated 748, where he wrote:

              “As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered?if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church.”[101]

  26. oldguy

    Bottom line is the state does recieve more money from the goverment than what we sent in the form of taxes, that’s what the facts say. I don’t think Bill is saying anything but that.

  27. Anonymous

    The point is: We will all suffer as long as psuedo conservatives at the state level keep voting to take stimulus and other ?free? money from the feds–two thirds of the state’s budget. LBJ’s great society is being created by our own state government.

  28. Troy Jones

    Fact: South Dakota recieves more direct expenditures the from federal government than it pays in taxes for primarily two reasons:

    1) The federal government spends more than it collects in taxes.

    2) The state has five disporportionate (to population) demands on the public purse related to:
    a: Its large tribal population relative to other states. These expenditures are related to treaty obligations of the USA.
    b: Its large public lands
    c: Its heavy concentration of agriculture economic activity which is the largest federal involvement in any private sector component of our economy.
    d: The size of the state and number of interstate miles per person (about a mile for very 1,000 people)
    e: The average age of South Dakotans is above the mean and median resulting in high Social Security/Medicare expenditures.

    Take out these unique factors and South Dakota does not receive a disproportionate slice of federal expenditures.

    But, why is this even an argument? The heirs to the treaty obligations are our neighbors (obligations for which we agreed was to be in perpetuity), the nation decided to keep our national forests and grasslands, rivers as national public resources, the nation has decided agriculture is vital to our national defense, the nation wants to have a fully developed interstate highway system for the benefit of all, and I am glad our state’s elderly want to stay here for their retirement.

    1. Stace Nelson

      Why did the argument start?

      Billy looking for a fight as usual and me not wanting to dissappoint him. 😀

      Semantics.. he said SD’s glass is half empty, I said it is half full. 😀

      1. BF

        I said South Dakota is a beneficiary state in that it takes more money in from the Fed than it pays in in taxes. This seems to be accepted by every poster here but you, Nelson.

        I said this to counter your claim that the Fed owed SD a refund on taxes they have overpaid for services they either didn’t or shouldn’t have received. You have not once made an attempt to justify that assertion.

        Thus, in this regard, both your glass and your argument are completely empty.

          1. BF

            This is what you said, Stace:

            “I think they would have been remiss in their duties if they had not accepted BACK some of the tax monies taken from South Dakotans. The federal government is only supposed to take what is needed to do that which we cannot do ourselves…”

            That sounds to me as if you feel the Fed owed SD a refund on taxes they have overpaid for services they either didn?t or shouldn?t have received.

            If that was not your point, what then was your point?

            1. Stace Nelson

              BS, show me in the blog rules here where you bark orders and people are supposed to step to.

              The statement was simple and easily understood on its face. It doesn’t need your idiotic interpretations or feelings.

              I do “feel” though that myself and others are owed a significant refund for having to put up with you. DWC?

              1. Stace Nelson

                “I do not think that is a fair criticism for either Governor Round or Congresswoman Noem. The decision was made by the legislature and accepted by Governor Rounds.

                I think they would have been remiss in their duties if they had not accepted BACK some of the tax monies taken from South Dakotans. The federal government is only supposed to take what is needed to do that which we cannot do ourselves, defense of this country being primary. It is not a charity.

                By accepting monies South Dakotans have paid into the federal government back, the federal government was not able to create another department we don?t need and the state was able to keep taxes low.

                Not an ideal situation, I will agree.”

                1. BF

                  Yes, I read it. Especially this thought, which I responded to:

                  “I think they would have been remiss in their duties if they had not accepted BACK some of the tax monies taken from South Dakotans. The federal government is only supposed to take what is needed to do that which we cannot do ourselves??

                  If that doesn’t mean you think we’re due a refund, exactly what DOES “accepted BACK some of the tax monies taken from South Dakotans” mean?

                  I think it’s as clear as the egg on your face, Stace. You have no argument here, and haven’t from the git-go.

                  1. Stace Nelson

                    BS, so what you continue to say is that you see SD as a welfare state that is beholding to every other state in the union and we provide nothing of value?

                    See how ignorant that is when somebody does that?

                    ***On a side note. Previously you lost a gentleman’s wager on last years election. You welched on that bet. Recently when called on it you publically stated you would donate $100 in my name to CASA in Mitchell. Just came from the BOD meeting, no monies were received.

  29. Stace Nelson

    Folks, as per the argument that not all the data is there, remember that a lot of the other states have state income tax. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html State income tax is deductable on federal income tax. Count those deducted monies as “returned” monies and it totally changes the whole who received what equation. As per my point, a detailed accounting & analysis of every dime, every benefit, would show a different picture than the opinions that SD is somehow a dependent state.

    Bottom-line? Spending by the federal government is OUT OF CONTROL, thus this posting that the federal deficit is over $15 TRILLION.

    1. BF

      Oh brother, another red herring.

      Here are some states that have no state income tax and their corresponding Federal Spending by State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes ratios:

      South Dakota: $1.49
      Nevada: $.73
      Texas: $.94
      Washington: $.88

      In other words, having a state income tax doesn’t have anything to do with it.

      1. Capt Obvious

        Only an absolute arrogant jack donkey would claim that such a determination should be made only on partial data. Consideration of all relevant data has clearly not occurred.

        Only a fool would accept a determination made on only part of the picture. Mr. Fleming, you can keep your opinions of this state and country, clearly you view it through uncomplimentary eyes.

        1. BF

          I have yet to state an opinion on this matter. Only facts. I have reserved my opinion for those who think the facts I’ve presented are opinions, and even then far more sparingly than their ignorance warrants.

          1. Capt Obvious

            The matter in contention is whether SD provides its fellow union states more than it recieves from them. You cite partial data in support of your opinion that SD is in fact more dependent than it is beneficial.

            The FACT of the matter is that a detailed examination of the total inter-relationship has not occurred. Your proclamation that SD is in fact dependent is not only premature, it is illogical in light of the Ag production and consideration of the context of the other issues pointed out.

            1. BF

              The matter in contention is whether South Dakota receives more Federal dollars than is paid in Federal taxes and are thus IN THAT CONTEXT a beneficiary state, as opposed to a donor state.

              We have established that this is indeed the case. This FACT has been affirmed by all bloggers here but one.

              Fed taxes out and Fed dollars in was the issue when Nelson brought it up, and it remains the issue now.

              Fed dollars in vs Fed taxes out. Simple.
              Fact: For every dollar SD pays in, it gets back $1.49.

              Nothing has changed except Nelson’s continuing approaches to try to change the subject.

              For example, at his first mention, Nelson made no lame attempt to contort the issue by asserting that the stimulus funds were borrowed from China.

              He only asserted that those moneys were due to SD because somehow SD had paid more taxes in than they rightfully should have and were due to get some of them “BACK” (his word).

              He reminds me of Herman Cain, caught in a fib, trying to back peddle his way out of it.

              Or Perry, trying to think of the next thing he was meaning to say.

              Only Nelson is far less charming and less skillful than those two. Coming from me, THAT’s saying something.

              1. Capt Obvious

                Mr. Fleming, is it ignorance or arrogance for you to think that you have the authority to set the context of anyone’s posting here? You are now fielding a concise issue of contention that was not the original issue of contention. Your exact claims were that other states subsidize SD.

                Your comments about “Fed taxes out and Fed dollars in” are also telling of the liberal mind that instead of being the taxpayers’ money, it is somehow all the government’s money.

                The blog article was about the National Deficit. As usual, you attempt to steal the blog for you own idiotic drama show.

                Your repeated ugly habit of mistating peoples’ posts is beyond bizzare. I can see how you earned the “most vile” blogger title.

                1. BF

                  It was your presumptuous assertion as to what the context was. I merely corrected you because you were mistaken and showed you why. You may not know what you are talking about, but I assure you I do.

                  Go back and read what Stace wrote. He was talking about taxes and so was I. Have been all along. Another fact. You seem to have a problem with those.

                  1. BF

                    In case you want to argue that South Dakota is not subsidized, please review this list again:

                    Since these are Federal dollars, they are, by definition moneys from other states besides South Dakota.

                    I am of the mind that in the United States of America, the government and the people are one and the same.

                    That is what I understand the Constitution to say.

                    So I draw no distinction between the two. You are free to do so, I suppose, but it would put you at odd with the Constitution and one of the founders of the Republican party who prayed that a “Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

                2. BF

                  p.s. Captain, do you always use the word “debt” and “deficit” interchangeably? Above you state that “The blog article was about the National Deficit. ”

                  It is not. It is about the national debt. Do you know what the national deficit is?

                  (Hint it’s not nearly as large as the national debt. Do you know why?)

                  1. Capt Obvious

                    Mr. Fleming, you clearly have way too much time on your hands. One could argue that you are wasting too much of the government’s time and monies on this government blog.

                    An honest man is allowed an occasional moment of mispeaking, especially when such persons as you are allowed so much liberty on this government blog to intentionally misstate others.

  30. Anonymous

    Who cares as dictators are dictators. WHen people do as told they are run by dictators. If they are not willing to stand on 2 feet and speak the truth and realize what is happening they are happy to be a dictator supporter. I think Russia, Libya, Tunsia, some of the Balkin states were run by dictator and people let it go for many yrs before fell apart. It fell apart not by leaders changing things but by over bearing politicians………….

    1. J Rae

      Anon says: “WHen people do as told they are run by dictators. If they are not willing to stand on 2 feet and speak the truth and realize what is happening they are happy to be a dictator supporter. ”

      Are you talking about Grover Norquist?

  31. BF

    Yes, I see Mr. Nelson made the same intellectual blunder.

    To wit: “Bottom-line? Spending by the federal government is OUT OF CONTROL, thus this posting that the federal deficit is over $15 TRILLION.”

    The federal deficit of course is not over $15 trillion. Not even close. I wonder how it is that both you and Stace managed to make the same stupid mistake. Could it be that you are both the same person? And if so, where is the “honest man” part in that?

    p.s. in what way is this a “government blog?” And in what way have I wasted any of your time. You in fact have wasted mine by denying the obvious and continuing to press your point long after the rest of the people here have agreed that what I have been saying to you is fact.

    I will submit at this time that a person (or persons) who doesn’t know the difference between a debt and a deficit isn’t qualified to be having this conversation. I only wish I’d have known about depth of your intelligence deficit sooner. I would have saved myself a great many keystrokes.

  32. its the Simple Things..

    If we had known that was all it took to shut you up, I would have called that $15 TRILLION, smurfs.

    Someone shove a pen in my eye if this blowhard types one more sentence.