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

Discussion in 'Economy' started by rdean, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    First, take a look at the states that voted Democrat (blue) and the states that voted Republican (red).

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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'.
     
  2. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,943
    Thanks Received:
    3,818
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,833

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  3. rdean
    Offline

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  4. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,943
    Thanks Received:
    3,818
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,833
    I said grain and beef. Not agriculture. They are related, but not the same.

    Try again.
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    89,726
    Thanks Received:
    16,384
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +49,578
    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
     
  6. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,956
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,962
    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.
     
  7. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,943
    Thanks Received:
    3,818
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,833

    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.
     
  8. rdean
    Offline

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  10. Mr Clean
    Offline

    Mr Clean Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    11,288
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +5,070
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

democrat states