Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[garbon]

Obama's post-convention bump has disappeared.

Gallup Tracking: Obama +1
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Ouch, went from a 7-point spread to a 1? Well we'll see what happens as a result of this latest news cycle.

[DGuller]

I think it's silly to follow the pollsters.  They're generally in stone age when it comes to statistical sophistication of their methods, and there is way too much noise in their data.  The national numbers are also meaningless when it's this close, since we have Electoral College and all.  I think 538 is the way to go, and it shows 75% chance of Obama win (though down by 5% over the last couple of days).

[MadImmortalMan]

Basically the Federal government keeps that land for its own purposes, so it's not a fair cop for anti-Staters to bitch about the costs of managing the land.

It would be nice if they found a way to make them profitable. With all the logging and mining and ranching and oil drilling and geothermal power generation and solar and tourism and whatever else that happens on those lands you'd think they could at least be in the black.

[DGuller]

BTW, Yi, care to make a bet on the outcome of the election?  I need to get back the money that Roberts cost me with his last minute flip-flop.

[Razgovory]

Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.

You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.

I think we could do with out Texas culture.  Also if we are getting rid of states that drag on the economy lets take out Montana, and Wyoming.  They are big drags on the economy.  In fact most of the big rural states need to go.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, if there is any state I regret cutting it's North Dakota. Those big rural states are mostly Federal projects with much of the land being federally owned and very few people there. However, it's a lot of land, and there is some tangible benefit to keeping that land around. For example we're finding large natural gas and oil deposits in North Dakota...I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of the big empty western states. The dirt-poor southern states are much more egregious because they have far more people and thus far more po folk waiting for hand outs. Montana may not contribute much but in absolute terms the peoples of Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas are so few that they don't really cost us much either.

The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states.  With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure.  Which road is going to cost more?  A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?

[DGuller]

A road that services 100,000 people in New Jersey is called a driveway.

[Razgovory]

The whole issue of donor vs recipient states isn't really entirely valid. A lot of the big empty states aren't recipient states because they are especially poor per capita, and the money they receive isn't a disproportionate pay out of welfare benefits or things like that. Instead it's more related to the fact many of those states are largely under Federal land management. The Federal government doesn't have to keep all that land, and most likely you could find private buyers in those states if you just wanted to sell it off. It's not really accurate to label some of those states as "sucking from the teat" because much of the "disproportionate benefit" they receive is in the form of dollars being spent on Federal land management--land that the residents of those States only derive minor benefit from in most cases. Basically the Federal government keeps that land for its own purposes, so it's not a fair cop for anti-Staters to bitch about the costs of managing the land.

Of course it is.  The Feds payed for the land, and it's not like it's a big draw on the budget to manage 100 square miles of desert.  Federal land ownership doesn't really factor into this.  The donor vs recipient comes from two main things.  The cost of managing large infrastructure, and the fact that rural folks tend to make less money then urban people.  They don't seem poorer because cost of living is also lower out in rural areas and small towns.  However, since taxes are collected from both at the same rates rural areas bring in much less in taxation.

[PDH]

The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states.  With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure.  Which road is going to cost more?  A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?

Fuck you, hippie.

[Razgovory]

The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states.  With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure.  Which road is going to cost more?  A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?

Fuck you, hippie.

Heh.

[Barrister]

I'm actually surprised that the Federal government owns large tracts of land in the western states.

That was a major political issue in Canada when the western provinces came into confederation - unlike the original 4 provinces, they did not take title over Crown land.

Of course that was fixed back in the 1930s.  Now the only major land owned by the Feds (outside of national parks) is in the northern territories.

[MadImmortalMan]

The government didn't pay for it. 

[DGuller]

Louisiana purchase. Thankfully, the Louisiana purchase did not consist of just Louisiana.

[Razgovory]

The government didn't pay for it. 

Where did you think the land came from?

[MadImmortalMan]

The government didn't pay for it. 

Where did you think the land came from?

It was nationalized from the Indians of course. There's no bill of sale showing the US buying it from anyone.

[Razgovory]

The government didn't pay for it. 

Where did you think the land came from?

It was nationalized from the Indians of course. There's no bill of sale showing the US buying it from anyone.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure the Feds payed France and Mexico for the Western US.  Besides, most of those Indian treaties involved purchases as well.