• hobovision@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This poster makes no sense in a few ways. Implying 900b for Nevada but below it has only 35b? Lines pointing at a small slice of the big military pie implying this would just take a small part of the budget but actually proposing to cut 90% leaving that small slice for the military budget and the big gray section for spending on other stuff.

    Why are you only repairing one city’s roads, funding one county’s schools, and one transit system? Why only building a few thousand housing units?

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      35 is clearly the population(?)-adjusted proportion Nevada would get of the 900b.

      but it is a bad graphic in that the largest investment by far in renewable energy is exactly the same size as the others

      • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        900 divided by 50 is 18 billion. Nevada has one of the lowest populations in the United States. So 36 billion makes no sense even it was proportional to population.

        • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nevada is 24th of the states, hardly ‘lowest’. but without recreating their whole budget on the back of an envelope i would assume the very lowest states would get less than a 50th, freeing up larger shares for other states. Nevada particularly might be pegged for a greater energy investment than it locally needs, because they’re well positioned to host solar that can be sent to surrounding states.

          • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You looked up the wrong statistic. Nevada is 24th in income rank, which is pushed mainly by Las Vegas. Nevada is 32nd in population. Making 35 billion wildly disproportionate.

            • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              24th in income rank

              remarkable confluence because i did not look up income by accident. my mistake was thinking the territories in the wikipedia table were not included in the number rank because their entries in the table don’t have a number displayed. but it is actually counted which offsets the states’ relative positions. just put them into a different table, damn.

              anyway i couldn’t find an actual budget document, just the 90% cut to the military on their website so who knows what arithmetic is behind this promise to Nevada.

              • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                They mention it in the opening of the Wikipedia article since you mentioned it.

                Also further down in the same table you referenced it is mentioned.

                I’m still confused as to where you got the 24th number, if it wasn’t from confusing the income rank for population rank.

                • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  the US states and territories sorted by population, not Nevada’s page. but apparently the territories’ numbers not appearing on that table is only on the new dark mode, not the normal white layout of the page