51st state? California politician pushes secession plan

Started by KRonn, July 15, 2011, 04:32:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Razgovory

#15
July 16, 2011, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Really?  I would think it's the other way around.  Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue.  It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey.  Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas.  When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.

Orange County and San Diego are hardly rural areas. 

It's debateable whether LA generates more tax revenue per inhabitant than the southern counties.  What's not debateable is that LA consumes much more revenue.

LA consumes more revenue then what?  What is that based on? Per capita?  Total?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Fate

#17
July 16, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure.  :lol:

The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).

Oh come on. They're carving out the most Republican parts of southern California and purposely excluding the heart of the region because it'd probably make the state Democratic overall.

Admiral Yi

#18
July 16, 2011, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 16, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh come on. They're carving out the most Republican parts of southern California and purposely excluding the heart of the region because it'd probably make the state Democratic overall.

Oh come on.

Now your turn again.

MadImmortalMan

#19
July 16, 2011, 04:54:05 PM
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas?  :P
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

alfred russel

#20
July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...

Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.

It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Fate

#21
July 16, 2011, 05:18:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 04:54:05 PM
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas?  :P

They can move the capital back to the proper site, Washington-on-the-Brazos.  :P

grumbler

#22
July 16, 2011, 05:36:03 PM
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

#23
July 16, 2011, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...

Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.

It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
I don't think the Republican-Democrat split is all the geographic in California.  You could gerrymander a partisan state that was non-contiguous, or you could gerrymander a contiguous one with a Sudetenland, but neither outcome would be an improvement.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

alfred russel

#24
July 16, 2011, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...

Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.

It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
I don't think the Republican-Democrat split is all the geographic in California.  You could gerrymander a partisan state that was non-contiguous, or you could gerrymander a contiguous one with a Sudetenland, but neither outcome would be an improvement.

It looks like the proposal is to have southern california until approximately LA, and then exclude the coast up a bit further. So it isn't horribly geographically gerrymandered, but it isn't a strict north south split either. I don't know to the extent that captures the republican areas--but I guess it would get enough republicans out of the state legislature to keep them from blocking any tax increases.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Admiral Yi

#25
July 16, 2011, 06:32:00 PM
And all the actors in Beverly Hills, the lawyers in San Francisco, and software developers in San Jose who have been begging for their taxes to be raised could have their wish come true. :)

Viking

#26
July 16, 2011, 06:38:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 04:54:05 PM
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas?  :P

Any state containing Lubbock would be Texas, the one containing Austin but not Lubbock would be considered Civilized.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

jimmy olsen

#27
July 16, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
When Texas joined up, wasn't there a clause that they could split up into multiple states, or am I remembering that wrong? :hmm:
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Razgovory

#28
July 16, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

MadImmortalMan

#29
July 16, 2011, 08:43:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
When Texas joined up, wasn't there a clause that they could split up into multiple states, or am I remembering that wrong? :hmm:

Yeah. They can split into 5 according to the annexation act.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions