Suppose we did become two countries, which one would be better off financially?

[rdean]

First, take a look at the states that voted Democrat (blue) and the states that voted Republican (red).

Now, compare that to the states that "receive" LESS than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government (blue) and the states that "receive" MORE than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government.

Remember, Texas has oil wells.

What is this telling us?

The states that hate government the most, benefit the most from government.

The states that talk secession, benefit most from the government.

Say the US did split into red and blue countries. What kind of countries would they be?

You would have the wealthiest country in the world with a government surplus. And you would have a third world country deeply in debt.

Now, why would a party based mainly in red states, believe they are the ones to manage the country? We had that already for 8 years and look how that worked out, then look at their own states. What is that saying about their ability to manage economies? No making accusations. Just pointing out facts.

Imagine if some state such as California got to keep more of the money they give to the federal government instead of giving it to South Carolina and Alabama and Kentucky?

Just sayin'.

 

[RadiomanATL]

First, take a look at the states that voted Democrat (blue) and the states that voted Republican (red).

Now, compare that to the states that "receive" LESS than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government (blue) and the states that "receive" MORE than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government.

Remember, Texas has oil wells.

What is this telling us?

The states that hate government the most, benefit the most from government.

The states that talk secession, benefit most from the government.

Say the US did split into red and blue countries. What kind of countries would they be?

You would have the wealthiest country in the world with a government surplus. And you would have a third world country deeply in debt.

Now, why would a party based mainly in red states, believe they are the ones to manage the country? We had that already for 8 years and look how that worked out, then look at their own states. What is that saying about their ability to manage economies? No making accusations. Just pointing out facts.

Imagine if some state such as California got to keep more of the money they give to the federal government instead of giving it to South Carolina and Alabama and Kentucky?

Just sayin'.

We get Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Utah...and you get Florida, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey and California?

Sounds like a good deal to me. We get the grain and beef producing states, you get the loonies and the industrial wasteland shitholes.

Works for me.

 

[rdean]

First, take a look at the states that voted Democrat (blue) and the states that voted Republican (red).

Now, compare that to the states that "receive" LESS than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government (blue) and the states that "receive" MORE than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government.

Remember, Texas has oil wells.

What is this telling us?

The states that hate government the most, benefit the most from government.

The states that talk secession, benefit most from the government.

Say the US did split into red and blue countries. What kind of countries would they be?

You would have the wealthiest country in the world with a government surplus. And you would have a third world country deeply in debt.

Now, why would a party based mainly in red states, believe they are the ones to manage the country? We had that already for 8 years and look how that worked out, then look at their own states. What is that saying about their ability to manage economies? No making accusations. Just pointing out facts.

Imagine if some state such as California got to keep more of the money they give to the federal government instead of giving it to South Carolina and Alabama and Kentucky?

Just sayin'.

We get Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Utah...and you get Florida, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey and California?

Sounds like a good deal to me. We get the grain and beef producing states, you get the loonies and the industrial wasteland shitholes.

Works for me.

I'm with you.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/AgResourceDirectory2008/1_2008_OverviewSection.pdf

Top 5 Agricultural States in Cash Receipts, 2008
State....... Rank........ Total Value Billion Dollars

California... 1............ 36.2
Iowa.......... 2............ 24.8
Texas......... 3............ 19.2
Nebraska.... 4............. 17.3
Illinois........ 5............. 16.4

From the top 5 states:

Red states - 36.5 Billion

Blue states - 78.4 Billion

And that's just agriculture. Start looking at Universities, manufacturing, military contracts and on and on and on. Pretty much everything.

It's just a wild guess, but I bet the Red States have more churches.

 

[RadiomanATL]

First, take a look at the states that voted Democrat (blue) and the states that voted Republican (red).

Now, compare that to the states that "receive" LESS than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government (blue) and the states that "receive" MORE than one dollar back for every dollar they pay the federal government.

Remember, Texas has oil wells.

What is this telling us?

The states that hate government the most, benefit the most from government.

The states that talk secession, benefit most from the government.

Say the US did split into red and blue countries. What kind of countries would they be?

You would have the wealthiest country in the world with a government surplus. And you would have a third world country deeply in debt.

Now, why would a party based mainly in red states, believe they are the ones to manage the country? We had that already for 8 years and look how that worked out, then look at their own states. What is that saying about their ability to manage economies? No making accusations. Just pointing out facts.

Imagine if some state such as California got to keep more of the money they give to the federal government instead of giving it to South Carolina and Alabama and Kentucky?

Just sayin'.

We get Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Utah...and you get Florida, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey and California?

Sounds like a good deal to me. We get the grain and beef producing states, you get the loonies and the industrial wasteland shitholes.

Works for me.

I'm with you.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/AgResourceDirectory2008/1_2008_OverviewSection.pdf

Top 5 Agricultural States in Cash Receipts, 2008
State....... Rank........ Total Value Billion Dollars

California... 1............ 36.2
Iowa.......... 2............ 24.8
Texas......... 3............ 19.2
Nebraska.... 4............. 17.3
Illinois........ 5............. 16.4

From the top 5 states:

Red states - 36.5 Billion

Blue states - 78.4 Billion

And that's just agriculture. Start looking at Universities, manufacturing, military contracts and on and on and on. Pretty much everything.

It's just a wild guess, but I bet the Red States have more churches.

I said grain and beef. Not agriculture. They are related, but not the same.

Try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CA and NY are walking dead financially and NJ is in critical condition. Republican Gov Christie can save it but Dems might want to pull the state down around their ears in their bunker

 

[California Girl]

If you separated the two, then the 'military contracts' would be out the window. As would chunks of your 'manufacturing'. Just saying. Neither 'side' would stay as it is. The whole premise is nonsense. You're thinking of two countries yet fail to recognize two separate governments... etc.

Oh wait.... the OP is rdean. Ok. My bad for expecting anything other than drivel.

 

[RadiomanATL]

If you separated the two, then the 'military contracts' would be out the window. As would chunks of your 'manufacturing'. Just saying. Neither 'side' would stay as it is. The whole premise is nonsense. You're thinking of two countries yet fail to recognize two separate governments... etc.

Oh wait.... the OP is rdean. Ok. My bad for expecting anything other than drivel.

Don't bother trying to explain the concept behind E Pluribus Unum to him. Waste of bandwidth.

I'm just going with his premise and saying he can go live in Detroit since it's such a great place.

 

[rdean]

We get Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Utah...and you get Florida, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey and California?

Sounds like a good deal to me. We get the grain and beef producing states, you get the loonies and the industrial wasteland shitholes.

Works for me.

I'm with you.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/AgResourceDirectory2008/1_2008_OverviewSection.pdf

Top 5 Agricultural States in Cash Receipts, 2008
State....... Rank........ Total Value Billion Dollars

California... 1............ 36.2
Iowa.......... 2............ 24.8
Texas......... 3............ 19.2
Nebraska.... 4............. 17.3
Illinois........ 5............. 16.4

From the top 5 states:

Red states - 36.5 Billion

Blue states - 78.4 Billion

And that's just agriculture. Start looking at Universities, manufacturing, military contracts and on and on and on. Pretty much everything.

It's just a wild guess, but I bet the Red States have more churches.

I said grain and beef. Not agriculture. They are related, but not the same.

Try again.

Grain is grass. Not terribly hard to grow. For sure, the top beef growers are Red States, but when you add in the other meats, sheep, pork, chicken, the picture changes. The top 5 pork states are Blue States (OK, here come the jokes).

http://animalrange.montana.edu/courses/meat/arnr316/Meat Production and Inspection.pdf

 

[rdean]

CA and NY are walking dead financially and NJ is in critical condition. Republican Gov Christie can save it but Dems might want to pull the state down around their ears in their bunker

Yea, but if those Blue States didn't have to give so much money to the Red States, then it would be a completely different story. Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare are expensive. Especially for people who are anti education.

 

[Mr Natural]

The successful and wealthy Blue states would end up giving foreign aid to their less well heeled red states brothers.

In other words, the status quo would be maintained.

 

[Truthmatters]

Except they would vote themselves tax cuts and would end up third world countries inside of a few years. Then they would have to beg us for the aide instead of voting for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CA and NY are committing a slow and painful economic suicide with annual deficits greater than the entire budget of most countries.

Yeah, good luck with that

 

[rdean]

If you separated the two, then the 'military contracts' would be out the window. As would chunks of your 'manufacturing'. Just saying. Neither 'side' would stay as it is. The whole premise is nonsense. You're thinking of two countries yet fail to recognize two separate governments... etc.

Oh wait.... the OP is rdean. Ok. My bad for expecting anything other than drivel.

Defense Contracts- Expenditures (most recent) by state

You might want to check that out.

Then look at the nature of those contracts. Texas, for instance, gets a lot of money because there are nuclear weapons buried all over the state. Also, there are a lot of bases.

But look at "Lockheed". Where is that company headquartered? California, the state with the most military contracts in nearly every category.

Where do you guys get your "info"? Just blow it out your butt along with that effluence?

Def of "effluence":

Something that flows out or forth; an emanation

 

[rdean]

Except they would vote themselves tax cuts and would end up third world countries inside of a few years. Then they would have to beg us for the aide instead of voting for it.

And we would have to "close the borders" to keep them from "sneaking in" and "picking strawberries". Except they wouldn't make much. Looking at those Red State "beefy bodies", they would eat more than they would package. Shortcake anyone?

The way Republicans hang out at those lesbian bondage clubs, we know the "cream" would be well "whipped".

 

[rdean]

CA and NY are committing a slow and painful economic suicide with annual deficits greater than the entire budget of most countries.

Yeah, good luck with that

We are taking care of "entire countries" now. I can think of three:

Iraq

Afghanistan

Red States

 

[rdean]

The successful and wealthy Blue states would end up giving foreign aid to their less well heeled red states brothers.

In other words, the status quo would be maintained.

You're probably right. That's a pretty big border. It would be impossible to find all the tunnels. We would have to stop every fat white person and ask for their ID. That "accent" would be a "give-a-way".

 

[Truthmatters]

except they would vote themselves tax cuts and would end up third world countries inside of a few years. Then they would have to beg us for the aide instead of voting for it.

and we would have to "close the borders" to keep them from "sneaking in" and "picking strawberries". Except they wouldn't make much. Looking at those red state "beefy bodies", they would eat more than they would package. Shortcake anyone?

The way republicans hang out at those lesbian bondage clubs, we know the "cream" would be well "whipped".

lol

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm with you.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/AgResourceDirectory2008/1_2008_OverviewSection.pdf

Top 5 Agricultural States in Cash Receipts, 2008
State....... Rank........ Total Value Billion Dollars

California... 1............ 36.2
Iowa.......... 2............ 24.8
Texas......... 3............ 19.2
Nebraska.... 4............. 17.3
Illinois........ 5............. 16.4

From the top 5 states:

Red states - 36.5 Billion

Blue states - 78.4 Billion

And that's just agriculture. Start looking at Universities, manufacturing, military contracts and on and on and on. Pretty much everything.

It's just a wild guess, but I bet the Red States have more churches.

I said grain and beef. Not agriculture. They are related, but not the same.

Try again.

Grain is grass. Not terribly hard to grow.

Why don't you try and grow a wheat field in urban detroit then.

We'll wait.

 

[Toro]

Its hard to say. Most of the economic power is concentrated in the cities in the northeast and the west coast.

As you can see here, there are 19 states above the US median for GDP per capita plus DC. Of the 19 + DC, 14 are generally blue - DC CT NJ MA MD NY MN CA IL WA RI DE PA HW - or 70%. Red states are richer than the rest of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

In terms of total GDP by state, the country is more evenly split. I counted 18 Democrat states plus DC, which generated 51% of the country's GDP.

GDP By State 1992-2015 - Charts

However, more of the country's production will continue to migrate south as the population continues to migrate south.

 

[rdean]

Its hard to say. Most of the economic power is concentrated in the cities in the northeast and the west coast.

As you can see here, there are 19 states above the US median for GDP per capita plus DC. Of the 19 + DC, 14 are generally blue - DC CT NJ MA MD NY MN CA IL WA RI DE PA HW - or 70%. Red states are richer than the rest of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

In terms of total GDP by state, the country is more evenly split. I counted 18 Democrat states plus DC, which generated 51% of the country's GDP.

GDP By State 1992-2015 - Charts

However, more of the country's production will continue to migrate south as the population continues to migrate south.

Then they wouldn't be "Red States". As soon as a state becomes "diverse", it stops being "Red".

Red like "communist"? Hadn't thought of that.