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

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

That's confusing ownership with sovereignty. A French homeowner in New Orleans still owned his house the day after the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't suddenly belong to the US Government.

[Razgovory]

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.

That's confusing ownership with sovereignty. A French homeowner in New Orleans still owned his house the day after the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't suddenly belong to the US Government.

Yet the US government was in the position to sell that land to it's citizens via the Homestead act.

[CountDeMoney]

@money : You'd give your left nut to live here instead of bawlmore.

Well, duh.  Doesn't mean it's not the land of fruits and nuts.

[Razgovory]

I looked up the Indian treaty for my local area.  Treaty of Fort Clark.  US paid 800 dollars to the Great Osage tribe and 400 dollars to the not so great Osage tribe.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Clark

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

That's not universally true, Alaska and Wyoming both have higher than median income. North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa have higher income than Ohio, Michigan and Florida which are far more urbanized states.

Further, how much of the infrastructure of Montana and Wyoming do you believe the Federal government versus the State government is responsible for? Do you think no other states benefit from having a transcontinental highway system? There is a reason we fund the interstate road system and that's because things that have a large national benefit may not always make sense if you break them down on a state by state basis. People from Montana and Wyoming certainly benefit from interstate roads, but if they are like every other state I'm familiar with a great deal of the roads people travel in their daily lives are state highways which are primarily supported by state taxes and not Federal taxes.

If you only argument is that big states receive more road benefits than small states (regardless of population) then that's kind of a moot point. The United States wants all that land, right? The United States wants its people to be able to drive across all that land, right? Why exactly is that even part of the discussion? Doesn't make much sense to me.

In terms of states and political entities that are sucking at the government teat for various entitlement programs, would it surprise you that the top 10 states in terms of welfare recipients per capita are:

1. D.C.
2. Guam
3. Rhode Island
4. Tennessee
5. California
6. Maine
7. Alaska
8. West Virginia
9. Indiana
10. Washington
11. New Mexico
12. Vermont

(I went to 12 since two of the entries in the first ten are obviously not states.)

Wyoming actually has the lowest number of welfare recipients per capita at 0.143 per 100 people. Idaho is the second lowest at 0.224 per 100 people.

We can argue about people in those states making less than people in New York City or Washington D.C., but it appears they are fairly self-sufficient in comparison.

[Razgovory]

What exactly is defined as "Welfare" here?  Where did that list come from?  Feds come in with all sorts of funds for state projects, so even state and local concerns often have federal money in them.  Matching funds, grants, etc.  And guess what, everyone who gets federal money thinks their purpose is important.  You think the US should have a lot of land and that people should be able to drive across it.  Fine.  Maybe not everyone agrees with you.  Maybe Dguller living in New Jersey doesn't want homeless people crowding living around his apartment block and would rather have the feds spend on welfare instead of having some entitled corn farmer write off his truck as "farm equipment", get federal subsides, federal bailouts if crops fail, federal loans, and a federally guaranteed price floor.  Maybe Montana should make up the difference somehow.  Maybe they should raise their tax rates so they can pay for their own roads if it's so damn important.

[MadImmortalMan]

"Welfare" probably doesn't include investments like roads and education. The people in Montana and Minnesota benefit from the Port of Oakland as much or more than California does. Personally, I would call farm subsidies welfare but that's probably not included either. I'm guessing it's just the stuff normally considered welfare like food stamps and stuff.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if social security is in there.

[CountDeMoney]

Personally, I would call farm subsidies welfare but that's probably not included either. I'm guessing it's just the stuff normally considered welfare like food stamps and stuff.

Welfare only applies to minorities and other undesirables.  Corporations and other non-darkie entities don't receive welfare, you know.

[Razgovory]

I actually don't mind people getting federal subsidies and shit.  Doesn't bother me.  I think that's part of the roll of government.  What pisses me off is people rail on about government wealth transfers, and how goverment "bribes" people when they are major beneficiaries of this.

[Phillip V]

I actually don't mind people getting federal subsidies and shit.  Doesn't bother me.  I think that's part of the roll of government.  What pisses me off is people rail on about government wealth transfers, and how goverment "bribes" people when they are major beneficiaries of this.

You should subscribe to Jesus' newsletter!


'Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, "Let me take the speck out of your eye", while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour's eye.'

[Razgovory]

I do.  I already get the Catholic Missourian.  And they already judge me.

[CountDeMoney]

You know, watching the rest of this video--beyond the 47% stuff, into the Palestinian stuff, the Iran issue, the Latino comments, SNL and more--is fascinating.  It'd like a window into the stupid.

[DGuller]

Any other interesting bits?  Did he admit that he rode Seamus on the roof because the look of fear in dogs' eyes puts him in the mood?

[Queequeg]

Any other interesting bits?  Did he admit that he rode Seamus on the roof because the look of fear in dogs' eyes puts him in the mood?