South California?

Brilliant. If they can get this to be a trend (getting states where the real Americans are dominated by the big cities) they can get some more electoral votes. South Illinois. Northern Minnesota. North Wisconsin. Gerrymandering at it's most high profile.

Parachute wrote:

OnWis97 wrote:

Parachute wrote:

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.

Minnesota's shutdown (the product of an idiot Dem Governor and idiot GOP legislators) is not relevant to these stats, all taken before the shutdown and our residents are still paying (and probably "donating") to the federal government. The shutdown is a product of politics, not the economy...which while not strong right now, is OK relative to the rest of the country.

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.).

Parachute wrote:

okay.... so we agreed on secession.


But you called your states "commie states", not me.

Hyperbole.