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.
I honestly don't know why the Civil War isn't the prime example of why the OP's proposal cannot work, end thread. Seriously. How has it gone on for almost ten pages now? There are a lot of other reasons that many posters have explained that make it seem impractical, to say the least, but the Civil War is this glaring historical event that you'd think would conjure up phrases like "never again."
Also, since OP hasn't been back, I still think this was meant as a joke, anyway.
Exactly, but I guess thats what happens when you begin erasing history. You know, doomed to repeat.
Wouldn't that make all liberal democrats traitors? Blue states would be seceding from the united states of America because they don't agree with the politics. Sound familiar?
So somebody who lives in Los Angeles or Seattle or New York should just be okay with religious fundamentalists in Alabama telling them what they can or cannot do?
If blue states secede, it will be to defend the Constitution and the First Amendment. Conservatives despise all of it but the Second Amendment.
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.
Oh bull the internet came out of a "socialist" program, you WOULD have opted out and would now be demanding to be allowed to use it.
Frankly your entire premise is balls.
lets say you refuse to be part of medicare for all.... i small program in medicare for all discovers a cure for cancer.... BUT IT IS SOCIALIST and you OPTED OUT..
now tell me why you should ever be let touch, or your kids or their kids. after all you OPTED out.
terrorists blow off your legs... your insurance does not cover terrorism , do we leave you to die ?
I can do this all day. hell one could drive a bus through your bs "OPT out argument and never even scratch it.
what about war, i OPT out, do i have to leave the country or can i hide behind your skirts...
What informed consent wants is a bespoke gov just for him, that suits just what he wants today , 325 million flavors of gov for Informedconsent..
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.
If it were that easy, I would support that. It's not. The top five states on Disability in the country are in the South with almost 10% of West Virginia on it. I don't want to pay for that and there's no way to opt out. Red states want to end abortion which will result in a massive increase in poverty stricken (and likely drug addicted) mothers and children, the result of which will be an incalculable increase in financial and social costs for their care and education. I don't want to pay for that and there's no way to opt out.
West Virginia wants to practically write coal usage into the Constitution. I would like to not care about that by saying "good luck West Virginia, just leave the West out of it". Red states have never met an environmental law they didn't want to overturn and they've never met a chemical they didn't want invite into the water, ground or air. I would like to not care about that. Let them as long as the West portion of the country can control our own environment. Yes we are global, yes there are negative things other portions of the country will do that will ultimately still cause the West harm, but at least we can do the best we can to minimize the damage.
The only way we can really make this better is to allow the states to form regions that share common economical, political and environmental goals with shared defense being the only shared federal policy.
That those receiving welfare benefits don't self-identify as Republicans is easy to understand.
That they prolifically self-identify as Democrats is easy to understand, as well... Just promise them even more free stuff paid for by taking earnings from someone else.
That they prolifically self-identify as Democrats is easy to understand, as well... Just promise them even more free stuff paid for by taking earnings from someone else.
We keep hearing over and over again from Republican voters that blue states are takers, that they just want "free stuff" that they are all on food stamps, etc. Yet time and again it is shown that blue states are the economic drivers of the country that give more federal dollars that they receive with red states benefitting. Rather than saying "those blue states would suffer!" and "boy, those blue states will be sorry!" why not just move forward with the experiment and find out? Why not just support the regionalization of the country and see? Give blue states their freedom. Give red states their freedom. Whether they will be "sorry" or not remains to be seen.
If red states want to end Medicare, that's fine, they can deal with that. After all, Medicare recipients only fund a third of the benefits they receive. If red states want to end Medicaid, that's fine but do they know that most nursing homes are funded by Medicaid? If red states want to make abortion illegal, that's fine, they can figure out how to pay for all those poverty stricken mothers and babies, the result of which will only get worse because red states will have less health care overall and those poverty stricken mothers will likely have zero prenatal care.
Will it result in the West or the Northeast joining Canada? Maybe. But the upside for Republicans is they won't have to deal with the blue states any more and isn't that the ultimate benefit for both sides? I'm inclined to think Canada would be over the moon at the economic gains the West and Northeast would bring for them. While I don't consider that to be likely or a long term goal, I also wouldn't have thought this country would develop such deep and unresolvable philosophical differences. The first step should be splitting the country in a way that allows both sides to move forward in an amicable divorce.
If it were that easy, I would support that. It's not. The top five states on Disability in the country are in the South with almost 10% of West Virginia on it.
Let's take a closer look at your premise...
Percentage of those who receive Fed Gov disability benefits, via self-identification political party affiliation:
We keep hearing over and over again from Republican voters that blue states are takers, that they just want "free stuff" that they are all on food stamps, etc.
You're internalizing the wrong message. It's not a state vs. state issue. It's a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The vast majority of those receiving public assistance benefits, which are paid for by taking the earnings of others so that they have less of the fruits of their own labor... are Democrats.
Cites both the Maxwell School of of Citizenship and Public Affairs (syracuse.edu) and NPR as data sources.
Almost 10% of West Virginia is on Disability. It is an extremely white and extremely red state. That is just one example. Another is when disability attorney Eric Conn was found to have put so many in Kentucky on fraudulent Disability. When they tried to stop those on disability from recing benefits, Republican congressman stopped it saying the Kentucky economy depends on that disability money. Another example, if the South want to make religion a key component of their political environment, that is fine. For them.
That being said, it doesn't matter. Both sides define "socialism" differently. Blue states view our country's economy asboth socialistic and capitalistic. Red states say they want to "stop socialism" while ignoring that they benefit from socialistic policies that include public education, farm subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security - even the military. We view the world completely differently and there's no point in hoping each side will convince the other side. Why keep wasting time?
The best use of time and energy is to allow the country to divide into regions where efforts are better spent in making each region successful while also allowing them to pursue policies they can truly agree on. If the country were to split, IMO we would get along far far better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're internalizing the wrong message. It's not a state vs. state issue. It's a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The vast majority of those receiving public assistance benefits, which are paid for by taking the earnings of others so that they have less of the fruits of their own labor... are Democrats.
It actually is a state vs. state issue but let's use an example within a state. Let's use my own state of Washington as an example. The economic powerhouse of the state is Western Washington. The population and the money are all in the West. The red portion of the state in the East grumbles and says they are not being represented. Yet Western Washington pays for their roads and infrastructure. Eastern Washington gets far more from Western Washington than Western Washington gets from Eastern Washington and Western Washington would be only too happy to allow every county to be forced to be self-funded just to watch what happens to Eastern Washington if they had to pay for themselves. This example is not unlike other states across the country.
Farmers will scream about socialism while lapping up farm subsidies and I don't see any of them complaining about the billions Trump is doling out to them now due to the tariffs. That is absolutely socialism there.
Again, that is not the point of this entire thread though. Rather than waxing on about how blue states will be sorry, how Democrats take all the benefits (regardless of how many times it is proven otherwise) or anything else. Let the country split, let the states regionalize. Where someone is a minority in a state with a different majority, allow them to move. They will benefit by living a healthier happier life in a state/region where they are not angry all the time. Allow the country to regionalize and if red states are confident in the success of their own policies without blue state money, they should care what blue states do.
Last edited by Seacove; 03-08-2019 at 02:20 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.
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.
