It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
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.
originally posted by: Disenchanted1
Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
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.
Think about that.
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)
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
originally posted by: Disenchanted1
Nope we are a UNITED STATES this vote should be nationwide.
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.
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.
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.
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.