South California?
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
Comments
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Godfather.
California, NV and the Pacific NW- gone
New England-gone
Great Lakes states: MI, MN, IL- gone
Hawaii- gone
What's left would make a fine America. All the leftists, statists, and Gubmint tit-suckers can starve.
As a leftist and resident of Minnesota, I'll take that any day of the week and watch your beloved "real America" states suffer.
THE STATES YOU MENTION
CA: Donor State (Donor states pay more to Fed Gubmint than they get back)
NV: Donor State
ME: Donor State
VT: Recipient State (but pretty much breaks even)
NH: Donor State
CT: Donor State
MA: Donor State
RI: Donor State
MI: Donor State
MN: Donor State
Il: Donor State
HI: Recipient State
OR: Donor State
WA: Donor State
Other Great Lake States: WI, IN, OH, NY are all donor states. PA is a recipient.
Most "real America" states are recipient states. That means they receive more from the federal government than they pay in. In other words, those that you think would "starve" under your plan would actually do better because they'd stop subsidizing the others.
Here they are:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States
And I totally agree...let's stop subsidizing the weak states and see what happens...
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Hey, Los Angeles County has more people than about 6 of the Red States... I say we break into South LA, East LA, West LA, The Valley and That Area kinda between Van Nuys and Malibu that nobody knows what to call where Cher lives. There's 5 more states, 10 more senators and a way to over-ride the 40% of the senate seats controlled by 16% of the population.
and then we move to breaking New York city into 5 states. And I bet the people of Houston would LOVE it if they no longer had to be called "Texans."
Your stats seem to suggest that those states have a surplus of money, and so give extra to the Fed to subsidize the "recipient" states.
But how can that be when the gov't of MN is currently shut down? States like CA, NY and IL are all hemorrhaging cash, and are actively talking about Federal bailout?
Doesn't add up. The fiscal policies in those states have bankrupted them, and have now been applied to the US economy w/ the same results.
These states don't "donate" to the federal government because they have strong economies, they do so probably because a) they tend to have some population density, b) aggregate income and c) per-capita income. I can't speak with any authority to whether Mississippi's low taxes and poor public education system play a role (yet I'd be happy to be in a different country if I am only worried about my state's bottom line) in why they are a recipient state. But some states (mostly real America states) send less money to the federal government than they get back. So I'd still take your plan (ignoring that my country would no longer be contiguous).
Wyoming, for example, will always be a recipient state, if for no other reason that the rest of the country needs goods shipped across this huge state with almost no population density...they cannot afford their own interstates. So you could argue that it would be hard for me to complain that my state is paying to maintain interstates over the vast Wyoming landscape so I can get goods from (and to) the west. So I am OK with it--it's necessary to make the country work. But the point remains that your "real America" relies on donations of my "commie America". "Real Americans" love sparse populations and would rather have a "per head of cattle" vote than a "per capita" vote, but it is inefficient to serve infrastructure to sparse populations, hence the subsidy. The population density in the states you call out vs. the sparseness in your states could play a huge role in my country thriving and yours struggling. I don't actually know what would happen, but the stats are that your country would lose a lot of subsidy.
It would be win win for "South California". They'd get to stop paying toward anything in the evil cities (within state budget) and they'd probably receive federal subsidy from California (and MN, etc.).
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
But you called your states "commie states", not me.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"