Question

intergovernmental money stopped being exchanged between your town's local government, the state's government, and the federal government, would that be a good or a bad thing for your local government? Explain.(1 point) Responses It would be a bad thing. Local governments typically get around eighty-nine percent of their total revenue from state and federal governments. It would be a bad thing. Local governments typically get around eighty-nine percent of their total revenue from state and federal governments. It would be a good thing. Local governments typically give around one third of their total revenue to the federal government. It would be a good thing. Local governments typically give around one third of their total revenue to the federal government. It would be a good thing. Local governments typically give around half of their total revenue to their state's government. It would be a good thing. Local governments typically give around half of their total revenue to their state's government. It would be a bad thing. Local governments typically get around one third of their total revenue from state and federal governments.

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

Overall, it would likely be a bad thing for the local government if intergovernmental money stopped being exchanged. Local governments heavily rely on funding from the state and federal governments to support their operations and services. Without this financial support, local governments would likely struggle to maintain essential services and infrastructure, leading to potential budget deficits and cuts to important programs. Additionally, local governments also play a role in providing revenue to the state and federal governments, so cutting off this exchange of funds could have negative effects on the overall economy and government operations.