All this being said, I’m not completely opposed to some completely self-initiated and voluntary ‘reorganizations’ of states, even as city-states ;). It wouldn’t bother me if California (or Texas) wanted to break itself into two or more states.
Although it might be time to join Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island by force of arms. 
Since this isn’t English 101 I’m not too concerned about complete sentences.
You keep bringing up a ridiculous hypothesis. Ok, sure. If a state was allowed to leave peacefully it would be peaceful. Maybe.
But so what? It solves no problem and creates 100 more. What no one would actually care about is if the whiny brats who always threaten to emigrate if so and so election doesn’t go their way would do so. Problem solved.
Nope; nothing there changes the fact that the blue donor states contribute more and get less back while the red moocher states contribute less and get more back.
He’s a poster? What handle does he use? “Dolt45”? “Cheetolini”? “Trumpelthinskin”? “Orangeanus Deploribus”?
:rolleyes: <mumbling to self> … horse … water … drink … </mumbling>
carry on, good sir.
According to this, for retirees overall, not just from California, it’s South Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Idaho and South Carolina. I actually hope it keeps up, otherwise the retirees’ heirs won’t be able to sell their parents’ houses to the next wave of retirees.
California isn’t going to exit any more than it’s going to divide itself in half, another idea that gets touted every few years. The main reason California won’t split is that Central California doesn’t want either of the ends.
And if we’re voting, here, no, it isn’t time to think about dis-uniting. Not even close.
The absurdity of someone from fucking NoVA lecturing ANYONE about “moocher states” deserves a more thorough hashing out than I gave it previously.
Here’s an article from the damn Richmond Times-Dispatch from last March titled “Economic Impact: Increased military spending could benefit Virginia’s economy”
Here are some excerpts:
And here is a report by the Virginia state government for the Virginia state government from a few years ago titled “Size and Impact of Federal Spending in Virginia”
Here are some excerpts from that one:
Please though, continue waxing poetic about “moocher states”. I love it when people in glass houses throw stones.
So you deliberately posted an argument that presents the exact opposite of what you claim?
Why would you do that?
Like the most famous recent case where the province of Alberta appealed to the Supreme Court that infanticide was outdated and murder charges should be laid?
I challenge you to present a reputable source in Canada that wants infanticide actually decriminalized.
I disagree. The rural areas provide food and manufactured goods. Which is well and good, but those can be bought on the international marketplace.
Hillary Clinton only won about 500 counties to 2500 won by Trump. But those 500 Clinton counties make up about 2/3 of America’s economy. Large cities have huge economies, the combined GDP of the metro areas of NYC, LA & Chicago is over 3.3 trillion.
As long as the urban areas can buy food and manufactured goods on the marketplace, they’d be fine. I really don’t think Americans want to kill each other, and I’m sure Chicago would be happy to engage in trade with the rural red counties in Illinois if the two broke apart.
However I don’t believe the rural areas would have as much human capital, and they’d suffer. I’m sure they’d be better at survivalism, but they wouldn’t be as good at surviving in a modern economy which requires high levels of education and talent in STEM fields.
So assuming the rural areas do not run an embargo against the urban areas, the urban areas will be fine. They can use their high levels of wealth to buy food and manufactured goods. The rural areas however will have shortages of talented workers and lower levels of income. They’d survive and be fine, but I think their standard of living would decline a bit without the urban areas to support them financially.
Kirsten Kramar.
It would be interesting to see that data broken down a bit to see who in each state was giving and who was mooching. And if welfare is mooching now why are Dems always in favor of more of it?
On the contrary, people need food to survive.
I’m guessing that you are referring to Kramar’s 2005 book, Unwilling Mothers, Unwanted Babies. Would I be correct?
Yup. If an embargo happened and the urban areas can’t get food, then the rural areas would win.
But I don’t see that, if something like this ever did happen then the rural and urban areas would just break apart and develop their own government. They’d be happy to trade with each other. Even if they didn’t, the urban areas could buy food from the international marketplace. If America and Saudi Arabia can trade peacefully, then red and blue America could trade peacefully too. People are assuming this situation would mean all out war, I think it’d just be more like a divorce rather than the 2 parties killing each other.
However as I mentioned earlier, the ~500 counties that Hillary won make up 64% of America’s GDP. That means the red counties would only have a total GDP of 6 trillion, vs 12 trillion for the blue counties. I have no idea if the population would be evenly split between them, but if it were (and it may not) that’d put the per capita income of the blue counties at $75,000 and the red counties at $37,500.
What #1 power would willingly begin the process of Balkanization? People, for some strange reason, don’t think this stuff through.
Politics is zero sum in many ways, and both sides are getting very tense about the fact that in order for one side to win, the other side has to lose.
Either way, its all theoretical. I doubt the US splits anytime soon. But it wouldn’t be the first time a nation split due to ideological differences.
You’re talking about splitting the country in two by county and you don’t think that would lead to bloodshed? What kind of a countries would that even look like? Or, are you planning to split the country into 500+ pieces? As far as I can tell, there has been exactly one time in history when a country split in two without some kind of a war-- Czechoslovakia.
The Balkanization happened because our cultures and values diverged, not because people are willingly pursuing a policy of Balkanization. When Rick Perry, then governor of Texas scores cheap political points by suggesting that maybe Texas should secede, when Fox News intentionally misinforms its viewers, when the president of the United States actively undermines the credibility of federal agencies, it contributes to the process. It really kicked in to high gear after the Florida recount when Bush pursued an aggressively conservative policy instead of seeking to pull the Democrats in; that’s when American politics became a zero sum game. Then, when Obama was president, the GOP used racism to attack Obama’s legitimacy and brought the country to the brink of financial collapse rather than let a black Democrat have a win. Since the 90s when the GOP made it their goal to bring down Clinton, even at the risk of doing permanent harm to our democratic institutions, the GOP has pursued a policy of pursuing short-term wins at the expense of national cohesion. Now, with the election of Trump, there is no going back: the damage is permanent and catastrophic. A lot of blue state Americans woke up the day after the election and realized that they had more in common with Canadians and Europeans than they do with red state Americans. That’s Balkanization.
My assumption is the urban areas would form their own collective nation and be like a land locked version of the Hawaiian Islands. Los Angeles, Chicago, Louisville, NYC, etc., pretty much any urban area with more than 200k would all be these disconnected blue dots that are all part of the same nation while all the rural areas would form their own nation.
If America did split, splitting it into blue states and red states wouldn’t solve anything. The issues isn’t blue states vs red states, it is urban vs rural. The rural people in blue states would be miserable and the urban people in red states would be miserable if the states left the union.
The costs of splitting up the US outweigh the benefits. But as a theoretical idea, splitting it into urban vs rural would be more effective than splitting along state lines. Not only are the main cultural and political differences urban vs rural, but the urban areas contain more wealth and human capital which would not be available for use by the rural areas under this plan. However some kind of EU agreement where people can move freely from one nation to the other would be needed too I’m sure.
In practice, we already are split up: blue and red state Americans each live in their own communities. We don’t work in the same industries, our families don’t mingle or intermarry; and if we worship, we worship in different congregations. The question isn’t should we split up, we already have, it’s what we do about it. Currently, we lurch from red president to blue president, Trump has made it a stated goal to undo Obama’s legacy and believe me, we will expect the next blue president to undo Trump’s. That’s the cycle, nothing gets done because what one side wants to do, the other side sees as evil. It’s not sustainable in the long run, but we can probably stagger along like this for decades.