interesting factoids from 2012

SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Rural areas get more federal dollars than urban for a few simple reasons.

People who live outside the city go into the city to work. Where they work is a place that contributes massive economic value.

The federal government builds highways, dams, windmills, and maintains large national parks in rural areas.

There is more economic activity in a city, no doubt.

In rural areas there are welfare rats also. They just don't live one stacked on top of the other. They blend in better.

The federal government doesn't have infrastructure in the urban areas.

That rural/urban government dollars comparison isn't restricted to entitlement programs or social benefits.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University
School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out
some interesting facts concerning the last
Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 Romney: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2
Romney: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Professor Tyler's definition is the following:
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; From apathy to
dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
Click to expand...
and if you read them all out loud, backwards, you will hear "that paul is dead"..
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Rural areas get more federal dollars than urban for a few simple reasons.

People who live outside the city go into the city to work. Where they work is a place that contributes massive economic value.

The federal government builds highways, dams, windmills, and maintains large national parks in rural areas.

There is more economic activity in a city, no doubt.

In rural areas there are welfare rats also. They just don't live one stacked on top of the other. They blend in better.

The federal government doesn't have infrastructure in the urban areas.

That rural/urban government dollars comparison isn't restricted to entitlement programs or social benefits.
Click to expand...
What you just said there makes my head hurt.

How about this. Rural areas keep their tax dollars and Urban areas keep their tax dollars and they spend them on whatever is necessary to promote those areas. Some areas will not survive due to lack of interest, businesses, etc. But just taking money from one area and throwing it on another area because they are not productive will end up with everything being mediocre.

The federal government was supposed to be inferior to state government in almost everything. We have created a monster and now we just beg for federal dollars while not realizing that all the dollars are our dollars in the first place. We are begging for scraps and fighting over race, religion, sexuality, etc. And most if not all of it is created by the government.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
What you just said there makes my head hurt.

How about this. Rural areas keep their tax dollars and Urban areas keep their tax dollars and they spend them on whatever is necessary to promote those areas. Some areas will not survive due to lack of interest, businesses, etc. But just taking money from one area and throwing it on another area because they are not productive will end up with everything being mediocre.

The federal government was supposed to be inferior to state government in almost everything. We have created a monster and now we just beg for federal dollars while not realizing that all the dollars are our dollars in the first place. We are begging for scraps and fighting over race, religion, sexuality, etc. And most if not all of it is created by the government.
Click to expand...
no, we are fighting the special interest groups aka lobby..take the money out of politics and you'll see how quickly things will change.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
MidwesternGro said:
The Roman Empire became more religious before it collapsed. Empire collapse has more to do with an empire stretching too far and being unable to conquer enough resources to sustain itself.
Click to expand...
Well it's nice to see you agree that socialism is the key factor in collapsing an empire.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
no, we are fighting the special interest groups aka lobby..take the money out of politics and you'll see how quickly things will change.
Click to expand...
You cannot take money out of politics until you take power out of politics. They get the money either way, legal or not.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
Click to expand...
So the kid thought it was studies in contemporary art and tried to mimic the techniques of Jackson Pollock?

Here's the quote I was responding to:
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

It turns out, Ty(t)ler never wrote that. I has been hoodwinked by the OP!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top