Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They used to be. But they have become infected with parasites, who are dragging down the entire state with them.
Time to cut them out.
If they are so productive, they won't have any problem surviving, right?
Silicon Valley is full of "parasites"?
Do you have any familiarity with California whatsoever outside your own county?
If you want to see what it's like to support a bunch of "parasites," just wait until SD and OC have to support all of those impoverished communities in the Inland Empire and southern San Joaquin Valley without any assistance from the generous taxpayers of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties.
I did read the rest of your post and is stunk of BS. Prove to me the rest of California is more productive than those two metros? And to answer your question, LA and SF would be just fine without the rest of the state.
So I guess we should break Texas up into 5-6 states as well. Texas is way too big of a state.
I'd rather it stay together and continue turning blue so we can keep hearing the biggest nanny states threaten to secede.
And contrary to the Republican fantasy that this would favor the GOP at the expense of Democrats, the map as drawn (absurdly, since Marin County doesn't belong with Sacramento at all) would result in the creation of 2 solid-blue states, 2 solid-red ones, and 2 "purple" ones.
This is all just a big, expensive tantrum from a techno-libertarian Silicon Valley entrepreneur who is tired of paying state taxes to support the "parasites" in the Central Valley and other impoverished red parts of the state. But hey, if he wants to waste $100M creating jobs for signature-gatherers and sign-makers, it's his money.
They used to be. But they have become infected with parasites, who are dragging down the entire state with them.
Time to cut them out.
If they are so productive, they won't have any problem surviving, right?
They certainly won't have any problem - in fact, this proposal was done by a Silicon Valley exec specifically because the bay area is so much wealthier than the rest of the state, and would become even more wealthy if it didn't have to subsidize the poverty stricken (and conservative) central and northern parts of the state.
I did read the rest of your post and is stunk of BS. Prove to me the rest of California is more productive than those two metros? And to answer your question, LA and SF would be just fine without the rest of the state.
So I guess we should break Texas up into 5-6 states as well. Texas is way too big of a state.
Funny, the original bill approved by Congress for Texas statehood provided for a future splitting of Texas into 5 states when and if the population decided they wanted it.
Congress did not like the idea of admitting either Texas or California into the union as such large geographical entities, but due to the restraints of the Missouri Compromise, and the discovery of gold here, their hand was forced.
The SF metro and LA metro aren't the productive parts of the state? Sounds like you don't know much about California. Also, what is this obsession with splitting up California? Why not obsess about splitting up Texas?
Yeah that yellow part on the map with Silicon Valley and San Francisco is an economic wasteland, sign me up for the Methtopia/Republic of Weed that would be the State of Jefferson...
Last edited by Deezus; 02-20-2014 at 01:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.