Proposal to split California into 3 states has enough signatures to qualify for November ballot

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: luthier

Um, pretty sure we were talking about California splitting up and your thesis that a northern California couldn't survive without the bay area. Well, and your disingenuous assertion only cities produce in Texas and there is no income from other sources.

Charts that show federal money goes various places is irrelevant because almost ALL citizens pay taxes, not just the “big city” liberals. For someone who wants to not be in the overall liberal box, you seem to speak just like one.

It's just playing the Devils advocate.

When a state can't pay it's budget, doesn't pay into the federal government and runs a debt on its operating budget that requires federal money meaning take more than they give it's pretty hippocrittical to go after liberals when conservatives can't figure out how to do it whereally that may be the case.

Conservatives rely on federal money as much or more particularly geographically. Whatever the reason they still use the programs and then complain about them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: luthier

That's because of all of the underhanded, underpaid, fiscal abuse of the migrant laborer.

I grew up in Bakersfield, in Kern County, and I saw first hand in places like Arvin and Shafter and Wasco (and the outskirts of Bakersfield) how these people were (mis)paid and (mis)treated. And there are a LOT of these people, driving average income levels down compared to coastal cities and places like, say, Silicone Valley.

Plus, I've done the research very recently--a salary of about $155K in Los Angeles has the same buying power as $100K in Bakersfield, CA, so the per-capita incomes mean nothing when you ignore cost of living. As far as the San Joaquin Valley is concerned, just the agricultural industry alone produces enough money annually to compete with and exceed the total GDPs of the bottom five states in America, and there are many more industries along Highway 99 to add to that total, to include a pretty decent energy industry as well as manufacturing industry.

My point being that, if the Central Valley were to be segregated from the northern and coastal cities in California and left to its own governance, it would do quite well, and would most likely distance itself from the far-left legislation that has kept California from being house-poor, so to speak. One not need to imply that, suddenly, the central valley would become a poor state just because over-inflated salaries in giant urban areas artificially skew reality that the counties in the San Joaquin Valley are not poor.

And without the labor you think they would?

I disagree. It's not only salaries but what those cities put into the economy vs what they take.

Why do rural states take so much money? Why can't Alabama operate without federal money on a large scale?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: luthier

Um, pretty sure we were talking about California splitting up and your thesis that a northern California couldn't survive without the bay area. Well, and your disingenuous assertion only cities produce in Texas and there is no income from other sources.

Charts that show federal money goes various places is irrelevant because almost ALL citizens pay taxes, not just the “big city” liberals. For someone who wants to not be in the overall liberal box, you seem to speak just like one.

It's just playing the Devils advocate.

When a state can't pay it's budget, doesn't pay into the federal government and runs a debt on its operating budget that requires federal money meaning take more than they give it's pretty hippocrittical to go after liberals when conservatives can't figure out how to do it whereally that may be the case.

Conservatives rely on federal money as much or more particularly geographically. Whatever the reason they still use the programs and then complain about them.

Sigh. I guess we’re done with the original topic.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Currently the bay area provides a lot of money to pay for say the norther most part of the state. Because of the companies that are literally some of the most profitable in the world.

Regardless of the welfare people in sanfran..

Nothing says liberation like creating more states...

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one or as George Strait puts it .........

I got some ocean front property in Arizona
From my front porch you can see the sea
I got some ocean front property in Arizona
If you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: NorthernLites

If 'the people' decide then so be it I say.
I support the wishes of the voters every time.

Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
Think about that.

Sounds like the effort to split up California is turning into a gerrymandering issue.

originally posted by: Disenchanted1

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: NorthernLites

If 'the people' decide then so be it I say.
I support the wishes of the voters every time.

Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
Think about that.

I'll easily agree to that as well, if the US people wish a national vote then cool. I'm in Britlandia so I just look at it as 'whatever the people want as a majority'.
On a similar note, Scotland rightly voted on their independence question as their own people, but I often wonder if it had been a UK wide vote would they have stayed in our union.
Another thread.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Using that as an analogy it would be like the people of the UK voting for Scotland, as this would be the people of LA voting to make a decision for the people not living in LA.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Disenchanted1

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: NorthernLites

If 'the people' decide then so be it I say.
I support the wishes of the voters every time.

Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
Think about that.

I'll easily agree to that as well, if the US people wish a national vote then cool. I'm in Britlandia so I just look at it as 'whatever the people want as a majority'.
On a similar note, Scotland rightly voted on their independence question as their own people, but I often wonder if it had been a UK wide vote would they have stayed in our union.
Another thread.

Honestly me being a FULL patriot I find this move on California as very unamerican and it undermines our constitution. What this is really is a sham to disrupt the electoral vote. This really needs to be a nationwide vote otherwise to me sounds like sedition to me or some form of succeed. (not sure of the actual spelling of the last word here)

But yea good point about your union also. Definitely a good thread topic.

This is not the first time that this has been proposed, and a few things that will need to be looked into:

The first would be what all is in the state’s constitution. That would have to be determined and ultimately be the final deciding factor. Texas has that in its constitution, however, not sure if it is in California’s constitution.

Now, here is where it is going to get sticky and hard, the first would be the state debt. Like any close society or relationship, the entire state benefits from both the money coming in and has to pay the debt, so the assets and debts would have to be divided 3 ways, so that each new state would have to have its share and burden. And then there are the small details that would have to be handled, things like water rights and use. Contracts, and other businesses would have to decide on such.

At the same time, there is a gain and a loss in the congress. On a whole, California gets a lion share in the congress, with electoral votes and in the House of Representatives. That in itself should be discussed. If they split it up, all of those in congress, representing California, would have to return home, and face re-election. And ultimately there would not be the same number going back. So yes there would be 6 new senators going to the Senate, but far less in the House of Reps, as such is determined by the population. So while the areas, that are GOP majority, would now have a voice in congress, it would be outspoken by the others who would have more, bigger population.

And that is just the start of new problems that the new states would have to figure out .

Word just in has Pelosi desiring to have her face put on one flagg....but

her plastic molding facial surgeon is trying to disuade her young dum azz

a reply to: luthier

That's a bigger question than can be answered in the time that I want to devote to this topic.

But I'll tell ya, not having a movie or a 'silicon' industry does not mean that a state is automatically non-viable...there are a LOT of things that go into what makes a state rely heavily on the federal government, and mismanagement is generally a very big one.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: luthier

That's a bigger question than can be answered in the time that I want to devote to this topic.

But I'll tell ya, not having a movie or a 'silicon' industry does not mean that a state is automatically non-viable...there are a LOT of things that go into what makes a state rely heavily on the federal government, and mismanagement is generally a very big one.

That may be true. But it's also true silicon valley pays a lot of bills.

Which one does Gov Moonbeam get to preside over?

a reply to: luthier

Yep, as do all of America's richest, individuals and corporations alike.

That doesn't mean that less-rich individuals and corporations don't maintain a viable, fulfilling, and often happier existence.

"Mo' Money, Mo' Problems." -- Lots of rappers, most of whom end up broke.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Probably a jail cell--could you imagine the illegalities that would be drudged up in Califonia's government if the state were to be officially split up?

I can only imagine the good-ol'-boy dealings and falsified documents that exist in that state's record books.

A vote of the citizens of California does NOT make this a done deal. Congress must approve. That effectively means all citizens get a say in this, although it is not direct, but through their congressmen. If Congress does not approve, it doesn't matter what the voters of California said.

The number of electoral college votes would increase by four to account for four new senators, but the electoral college votes for the US House of representatives would remain the same because the population itself would not have changed. The "swing" between red and blue states is very uncertain within California itself, so you should not make any dramatic claims here. Further, if California succeeds in this, it will be the first of many because their are movements right now today in many states to do this very thing. Washington State is one where there is a growing and active movement to split the state North to South along the Cascade Mountain range. This would create an Eastern Washington rural red state and a Western Washington urban blue state.

The GDP arguments presented here are a side issue and lack any real economic intelligence as far as I can see. All three projected Californias (plural) have both urban and rural components. The economic analyses presented here on ATS aren't worth the bytes used to present them. Beware of unintended consequences.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: NorthernLites

If 'the people' decide then so be it I say.
I support the wishes of the voters every time.

This is not a referendum, it's a petition signed by 600,000 people.
There are 24.3m eligible voting adults in CA.

So when you say 'the people' it's actually 1 in 40 people.