Ok I realize that opening this can of worms could be dangerous, but interesting. Of course many have heard about some 30+ states signing petitions to secede from the United States of America. I will reserve my judgement for now and am not so interested in discussing whether we should or not, or whether it is even possible.
My question to the AOM gentlemen is this:
"What result could you see both positive and negative if the states were to secede and become their own separate government?"
There's also a small matter of where a lot of military bases are located. Those Air Force bases "out in the middle of nowhere" tend to require large infusions of federal cash into such states as Nevada and North Dakota. Then there's a slew of conservation and agricultural programs that, oddly enough, only seem to happen in rural, low-population states.
I think the other guys hit on it. Subsidies for farms/ranches, military installations, I would say for parts of the midwest and the gulf south that there would be more federal spending on disasters that the state can't handle, just through speculation I would look at the income levels to see if there was a higher percentage on some sort of aid than in blue states where the higher paying jobs are(ie population percentage on some type of welfare), little green aliens
Colorado and Texas are urban States?
Maybe on part of Colorado's Front Range.
Judging from the usual suspects' posts, Texas definitely has a major urban area sized ego.
Thanks, I found it but it didn't post for some reason.
You may be right about the 'luster of secession fading' but you do have to wonder (ok you don't "have" to but it does make you think), why is it that those states that get more tax dollars are red states and not blue. It seems as though it should be the other way around.
Well many of the red states are the southern states and are considered the 'poorer' states. The average standard of living is low, the average income is low, the people are poorly educated for the most part; basically these states are dead last in all the good things and first in all the bad things. Why is that? Well if you provide a living 'income' for someone what's their motivation to work, to go to school, to take care of their family? If you give them so much for food they'll spend it on cheap food (poor nutrition) in order to have some left over for other things. So you have the poor, uneducated, unemployed people who have no motivation to make a change because all their needs, and wants, are taken care. Do these people vote very often, I don't think so although I may be wrong but the 'color' of the state tends to support my thinking. So you have a large percentage of the population who are getting government benefits of some sort without putting much back into the government coffers. Then you have the other part of the population that does work, has an education, sees the other 'half' getting without working and votes as a fiscal conservative to reduce the drain on their pocket. They are the ones who are out there voting and they are the reason the state is a red state.
Let me just note an exception. Kentucky is poor--but it has low crime ratings...
Well many of the red states are the southern states and are considered the 'poorer' states. The average standard of living is low, the average income is low, the people are poorly educated for the most part; basically these states are dead last in all the good things and first in all the bad things.
Relative. All 50 US states are represented in the top 150 world economies. Granted, Vermont is lower ranked than North Korea, but Vermont still has hippie communes.
Irrelevant, we are talking about tax base and tax dollars spent, not world economies. It, the comparison between the states, is relevant only in the context of the American States.
I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the dissolution of the United States. On a purely economic front, each individual State could make a go at it. Economically, they individually rank pretty well in the world economy.
's ok. I was responding to a particular post about the Red states requiring more tax dollars than blue states and why that would be the case. In the case of secession then yes, the world economy would definitely be a factor and the place those states could or would take in that economy. It is an interesting topic. For example how would Mississippi fare upon secession, what would their economy be based upon, they have a coast line as well as a fairly large agrarian base but what other production capabilities do they currently have that they could capitalize on? What production capabilities could they build within a short time period?
Mississippi has a ship building industry.