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.
Sorry, but so many people are moving into Boston that it's about to explode. There's barely any more room to expand. It's good for the rest of the state that's starting to get some of the overflow.
CT is losing population because for years it was poorly managed, corruption, I think. They have to clean up their act. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire--their young people have always left for jobs but now people are looking to retire there. They are wonderful states.
New Jersey, I don't know much about but it's crowded so people are probably leaving to get some peace and quiet and room. New York state is cold and mostly rural and I don't know if people are leaving but they always have, looking for better jobs. People have always left rural areas.
Vermont and New Hampshire are so beautiful and have such good quality of life that I wish people would stop moving there. Massachusetts people are taking over New Hampshire and NYC people are invading Vermont.
that plan reads like one Putin might have come up with... No wonder Putin funds the Republicans he sees them as a great way to destroy the US... But really there is no need, Trump is doing it all on his own by starting a losing conflict with China, a conflict he is losing and losing fast...
This is how I envision Americans. In matter of fact. I hope America splits on the lines I have mentioned.
Yes. Allow the country to regionalize by allowing states to group together based on political and economic agreement. Limit federal control to national defense. Allow regions form global agreements and to establish laws that prevent refugees from different regions to "benefit shop" by establishing five or ten year qualification periods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
The idea that the blue states couldn't get by without food from the red states is just ridiculous.
Canada would love to provide the blue states with food, as would Mexico, etc.
Without farm subsidies from the blue states, the red states might find it difficult to be competitive.
Agriculture is huge in blue states such as California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii. In addition, states could regionalize with blue states supplementing their own agriculture through trade agreements with places like Central America, the same way we see Costco produce in winter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges
This shows that the issue is more complex than you initially stated.
Indeed. For example the second largest contributor to the growth in Washington state is Texas, which makes no sense.
of course it is not going to happen. this is just Republicans feeding their egos, pretending to themselves that somehow they could rid themselves of those pesky liberals..
Which is why i never stop reminding Republicans that "republican America" is welfare America.
let me repeat that.
Republican america is welfare america.
Since Democrats live in red states, and vice versa, your ridiculous assertion has been completely debunked.
Here's the truth...
Percent of Public Assistance Program Recipients Who Identify as:
Democrat:
Public Housing: 81%
Medicaid: 74%
Food Stamps: 67%
Welfare or public assistance: 63%
Republican:
Public Housing: 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Can’t we just split the country into blue states and red states? Trump has proven beyond a doubt that the red states and blue states can't work together, so why don't we stop pretending we can and just split the country?
Sure, just tell all Republicans to move to a red State, and Democrats move to a blue State. In case of my home State (Florida), we'd have to replace about 50% of the population.
Where do the independents go? Do we need a third country for us? I'd hate to move to a red State like Alabama or Mississippi.
Again... Since there is a certain subsection of the population who wishes the Fed Gov to provide more socialist program benefits, let those who wish to do so buy into any such Fed Gov programs by sharing the corresponding cost of such programs. Those who opt out of such programs don't have to pay. That way, everyone gets what they want. One nation. Indivisible. Individual liberty. Free to be; you and me.
Again... Since there is a certain subsection of the population who wishes the Fed Gov to provide more socialist program benefits, let those who wish to do so buy into any such Fed Gov programs by sharing the corresponding cost of such programs. Those who opt out of such programs don't have to pay. That way, everyone gets what they want. One nation. Indivisible. Individual liberty. Free to be; you and me.
im totally in favour of this. ultimately though, it means that everybody gets a form where they check off each thing they want to be taxed for-- instead of letting congress decide.
im totally in favour of that, too. dont want to fund the military? up to you, citizens. if china invades, maybe you should have funded the military sufficiently. i think we probably overspend-- im technically against that. i do not think underfunding is a worthwhile solution, but we are speaking awfully hypothetically.
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.
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.
