Posted: 6/27/2012 1:56:57 PM EDT
|
Honest discussion time.
Would splitting the state really make that much of a difference? It seems to me we have some heavy hitting blue counties in Northern CA (Bay area/Sacramento) as well as the central area and SoCal. Would dividing the state into two or three improve the situation for California? Commerce, Voting base, monetary spending, government and legislature... much more to actually consider. Also would each new state be able to stand on it's own two feet? I know it's been discussed by many Californians but I dont recall seeing it here. CA needs to get it's act together but we all can see the likelihood of that happening with the "representatives" of the people who keep getting elected. ETA: for some of you that dont know, I'm a Richmond native.. born and raised but in Okinawa with the AF. I love CA but sickens me watching what's happening to her. |
| If they could split coastal CA from mainland CA, so that the SJ Valley and the sierra's went with northern CA, while SF and everything south of it along the coastal range went with southern CA, I think that would be awesome. Just use the coastal range for the dividing line. Not feasible by any stretch of the imagination, but man it would be nice. |
|
Quoted:
The state doesn't need to be split in two. The state constitution needs to be amended to allow county commissioners appoint two senators instead of being elected from gerrymandered senate districts. The SCOTUS decision on Reynolds v Simms has to be nullified. chances on that are slim to none, we have the same voter base electing senators who have only served their own pockets for years now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The state doesn't need to be split in two. The state constitution needs to be amended to allow county commissioners appoint two senators instead of being elected from gerrymandered senate districts. The SCOTUS decision on Reynolds v Simms has to be nullified. chances on that are slim to none, we have the same voter base electing senators who have only served their own pockets for years now. You are probably correct  Maybe if we named the initiative "________ for the Children" we could get it passed.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The state doesn't need to be split in two. The state constitution needs to be amended to allow county commissioners appoint two senators instead of being elected from gerrymandered senate districts. The SCOTUS decision on Reynolds v Simms has to be nullified. chances on that are slim to none, we have the same voter base electing senators who have only served their own pockets for years now. You are probably correct Maybe if we named the initiative "________ for the Children" we could get it passed.or make it so you have to pay taxes in order to vote. 
|
|
Won't happen.
For all that talk about the 'State of Jefferson' etc., those folks are way too dependent on the producers in the metro areas. North NorCal doesn't have much outside of lumber and farming. Huge amounts of population on welfare or other gov't transfer money. I knew it was on that track when I first saw EBT Welfare ATM terminals in grocery stores. Huge numbers of plain white stupid unemployed - with nothing to do. Bill |
|
Quoted:
Won't happen. For all that talk about the 'State of Jefferson' etc., those folks are way too dependent on the producers in the metro areas. North NorCal doesn't have much outside of lumber and farming. Huge amounts of population on welfare or other gov't transfer money. I knew it was on that track when I first saw EBT Welfare ATM terminals in grocery stores. Huge numbers of plain white stupid unemployed - with nothing to do. Bill Yes, but due to the regulations and costs imposed by Sacramento and now with Obamatax on the horizon, you can't open a business to employ people. You can't expand lumber, you can't open large scale manufacturing, you can't even expand large scale farming due to water going to LA. The big problem with CA is representation. With all the money from the public employees unions, teacher's unions (nice May-Day parade you commie scum, by the way), etc. going to the dems, and the fact that no one from the CA republican party has any leadership or balls - if you are in an conservative area (like North San Diego County or Orange County) you are basically held hostage by the legislature and tax money paid is simply wasted. This is a case of taxation without representation due to the forgone conclusion and majority that current districting creates in each election. Splitting CA and then allowing a pro-business regime to come to power in a reverse C shaped state, would be better for CA. How long can the pro-welfare state areas like LA and SF hold on? You would have to draw the new borders to have the coastal strip between SF and LA be one state, and everywhere else be another. I don't know how well that would work, but it could be better than what's going on now. Bill, I'm sorry you're in the bay area. You have to put up with a lot of shit. |
|
The welfare riding areas aren't just SF, you have Oakland, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole... fuck it, most of the East Bay.
Simply hoping the liberals will leave after they have completely fucked the state is a bad plan but there isn't much choice when politicians don't give two fucks about what is right and wrong. |
|
Quoted:
The welfare riding areas aren't just SF, you have Oakland, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole... fuck it, most of the East Bay. Simply hoping the liberals will leave after they have completely fucked the state is a bad plan but there isn't much choice when politicians don't give two fucks about what is right and wrong. Don't forget Stockton. My gf is living right now with her family going to school, and man that place is bad really bad. Even if California split into two i would still move, sorry buts its going to take years, and years of hard work to get this state back to normal. |
|
Quoted:
Bill, I'm sorry you're in the bay area. You have to put up with a lot of shit. I love living in Bay Area except for gun BS, which we will ultimately win. Need a job? Pick up the phone. Delicious restaurants up & down the boulevard. Great shopping. Nice weather. SF Symphony one of the world's best. Bookstores! Women have teeth. Methheads and welfare people not too visible. Silicon Valley still creates businesses and will continue to. Glad I'm not in the State of Jefferson - actually, tired of paying for them and NV and Utah and Wyo. etc - they're all net-transfer-states that don't produce as much as they take in from subsidies etc. CA produces far more than it takes from Feds and even as f***d up as we are we are still a producer state - value of our goods+services created far exceeds the amount coming back from Feds in terms of projects, Fed salaries, SocSec/Medicare, Fed retirements. Fed purchases etc. In fact we pay too much Fed income tax in CA. Gotta pay for dem crop subsidies etc Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bill, I'm sorry you're in the bay area. You have to put up with a lot of shit. I love living in Bay Area except for gun BS, which we will ultimately win. Need a job? Pick up the phone. Delicious restaurants up & down the boulevard. Great shopping. Nice weather. SF Symphony one of the world's best. Bookstores! Women have teeth. Methheads and welfare people not too visible. Silicon Valley still creates businesses and will continue to. Glad I'm not in the State of Jefferson - actually, tired of paying for them and NV and Utah and Wyo. etc - they're all net-transfer-states that don't produce as much as they take in from subsidies etc. CA produces far more than it takes from Feds and even as f***d up as we are we are still a producer state - value of our goods+services created far exceeds the amount coming back from Feds in terms of projects, Fed salaries, SocSec/Medicare, Fed retirements. Fed purchases etc. In fact we pay too much Fed income tax in CA. Gotta pay for dem crop subsidies etc Bill Wiese San Jose CA How tired are you of paying for Nevada? NV receives LESS of it's federal tax dollar back (per federal tax dollar paid) than CA. I guess you really aren't that tired. http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state/ |
|
Quoted:
How tired are you of paying for Nevada? NV receives LESS of it's federal tax dollar back (per federal tax dollar paid) than CA. I guess you really aren't that tired. http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state/ Your attempted zing does not change my argument - NV MT WYO etc are all net transfer states. These states are full of nonproducers that are not balanced out by achievers/income creators. Yes, NY is taxed heavlily too and produces more than comes back to it; didnt know of actual ranking vs CA. Bottom line, though, is producer states - despite all their burdens (illegals, state gov't overhead etc.) - have other states as their #1 burden. California has its Greece & Italy, to put it into a Euro context. We Californians have more burden from KS and MO (esp with crop price suppoprts and other ag subsidies) than we do from illegals. As f***d up as our gov't is we are still very productive as a state. Bill Wiese San Jose |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How tired are you of paying for Nevada? NV receives LESS of it's federal tax dollar back (per federal tax dollar paid) than CA. I guess you really aren't that tired. http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state/ Your attempted zing does not change my argument - NV MT WYO etc are all net transfer states. These states are full of nonproducers that are not balanced out by achievers/income creators. Yes, NY is taxed heavlily too and produces more than comes back to it; didnt know of actual ranking vs CA. Bottom line, though, is producer states - despite all their burdens (illegals, state gov't overhead etc.) - have other states as their #1 burden. California has its Greece & Italy, to put it into a Euro context. We Californians have more burden from KS and MO (esp with crop price suppoprts and other ag subsidies) than we do from illegals. As f***d up as our gov't is we are still very productive as a state. Bill Wiese San Jose I was not attempting a "zing," but you might want to rethink your argument anyway. If NV only gets 65 cents back for every dollar it sends to the feds and CA gets back 78 cents, it seems hard to argue that CA is paying for NV (.65<.78). For the life of me I also don't understand how you could argue that NV is a net transfer state (.65<1.00), but I'm sure you will. |
|
Quoted:
I was not attempting a "zing," but you might want to rethink your argument anyway. If NV only gets 65 cents back for every dollar it sends to the feds and CA gets back 78 cents, it seems hard to argue that CA is paying for NV (.65<.78). For the life of me I also don't understand how you could argue that NV is a net transfer state (.65<1.00), but I'm sure you will. 1. States produce goods and services.of a certain net value. 2. States give/take money from Fed Gov. 3. If the productivity of goods & services exceeds the net fed payments back in, it's a "net producer state". 4. If the productivity of goods/services is less than the fed payments in, it's a "net transfer state". 5. If the productivity of goods/services Income includes Fed retirements, Fed salaries, SocSec/Medicare/SSI, ag payments, subsidies for housing, Fed projects etc. Most 'red' states are thus on 'white welfare' as their states aren't productive enough in high margin goods & services to exceed Federal support: that is, if left standing alone without these Fed monies they would not be able to suppor themselves. [Could be a small arg. in some states about resources extracted from Fed land and which side of the line that is treated, etc.] CA - despite welfare and ineffective gov't - has enough achievers and producers to make high margin products Paul posted several graphs/data sources here awhile back to demonstrate this. CA pays for a ton of states - hell, the SF Bay Area alone pays for many. Heck, SF Bay area carries and compensates for the North NorCal 'burden' of limited business, high unemployment, etc. -Bill |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was not attempting a "zing," but you might want to rethink your argument anyway. If NV only gets 65 cents back for every dollar it sends to the feds and CA gets back 78 cents, it seems hard to argue that CA is paying for NV (.65<.78). For the life of me I also don't understand how you could argue that NV is a net transfer state (.65<1.00), but I'm sure you will. 1. States produce goods and services.of a certain net value. 2. States give/take money from Fed Gov. 3. If the productivity of goods & services exceeds the net fed payments back in, it's a "net producer state". 4. If the productivity of goods/services is less than the fed payments in, it's a "net transfer state". 5. If the productivity of goods/services Income includes Fed retirements, Fed salaries, SocSec/Medicare/SSI, ag payments, subsidies for housing, Fed projects etc. Most 'red' states are thus on 'white welfare' as their states aren't productive enough in high margin goods & services to exceed Federal support: that is, if left standing alone without these Fed monies they would not be able to suppor themselves. [Could be a small arg. in some states about resources extracted from Fed land and which side of the line that is treated, etc.] CA - despite welfare and ineffective gov't - has enough achievers and producers to make high margin products Paul posted several graphs/data sources here awhile back to demonstrate this. CA pays for a ton of states - hell, the SF Bay Area alone pays for many. Heck, SF Bay area carries and compensates for the North NorCal 'burden' of limited business, high unemployment, etc. -Bill Bill, You can talk youself a circle all day long, but the fact will still remain that NV still gets less of it's fed tax dollars back than CA. For you to claim tha CA is supporting other states by using the fact that CA gets less back than it contributes is fair, but for you to not acknowledge the same is also true for NV is rediculous. |
|
CA native here. Here's one reason splitting the state will never happen: water rights. Northern CA has water, Southern does not. When I was a kid living in Sac. my southern CA relatives came to visit and made very derogatory remarks about our built-in pool and how much water it uses blah, blah, blah. My folks shut them down pretty quick when they said well it's our water that we send down to you in Anaheim (or someplace down there). |
|
Quoted:
Bill, You can talk youself a circle all day long, but the fact will still remain that NV still gets less of it's fed tax dollars back than CA. For you to claim tha CA is supporting other states by using the fact that CA gets less back than it contributes is fair, but for you to not acknowledge the same is also true for NV is rediculous. There are a huge number of fed employees plus retirees/soc. security people etc. in NV. The last I saw NV had more coming into it from the feds than going out: a "net loss" state since they produce relatively few goods & services to make up for it. If you took Fed money away from NV it would not survive as-is. If you took Fed money away from CA, we would. If you took North Norcal away from CA we would further improve by losing losers. Bill |
|
Quoted:
CA native here. Here's one reason splitting the state will never happen: water rights. Northern CA has water, Southern does not. When I was a kid living in Sac. my southern CA relatives came to visit and made very derogatory remarks about our built-in pool and how much water it uses blah, blah, blah. My folks shut them down pretty quick when they said well it's our water that we send down to you in Anaheim (or someplace down there). That's only sort of true. The Central Valley gets it's water from the Sacramento River Delta (and the Sierra) and is always fighting for a greater share to irrigate more crops (which, all you CA haters, happen to supply ONE-THIRD of the nation's produce). LA gets its water from the Colorado River, and I'm not sure about San Diego, but water would only be an issue for the Central Valley. The main problem is, drumroll please, money. Period. No large region is wealthier than any other, and many regions are not wealthy at all (the *real* Northern California north of the greater SF Bay Area) and, despite their desire to create the State of Jefferson, haven't two farthings to rub together. The Central Valley isn't wealthy, the southern desert area isn't wealthy. California will never split, there simply isn't the money for two (or three) states. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bill, You can talk youself a circle all day long, but the fact will still remain that NV still gets less of it's fed tax dollars back than CA. For you to claim tha CA is supporting other states by using the fact that CA gets less back than it contributes is fair, but for you to not acknowledge the same is also true for NV is rediculous. There are a huge number of fed employees plus retirees/soc. security people etc. in NV. The last I saw NV had more coming into it from the feds than going out: a "net loss" state since they produce relatively few goods & services to make up for it. If you took Fed money away from NV it would not survive as-is. If you took Fed money away from CA, we would. If you took North Norcal away from CA we would further improve by losing losers. Bill Bill, you are completely correct, CA taxpayers support Nevadans. I don't know what I was thinking when I Googled "federal spending received per dollar of taxes paid by state" and found that NV receives less of it's tax dollar back than CA. I guess I was only considering the non-returned tax dollars paid as the means to define support. I didn't really properly consider super important and highly reliable evidence like "last Bill saw" or the need for taxpayers to produce many "goods and services" in order to pay taxes to the feds. In my haste I was only focusing on the taxes actually paid and the spending actually coming back into the state from the feds. I don't know what I was thinking, but your nebulous logic has impressed me. I'm now going to head up to South Lake Tahoe and let all the Californians up there know that they are leaches and the "productive" parts of CA are tired of supporting them. They really don't make anything (high value added), right? I guess I'm done with this part of the thread as you've cleared everything up for me. Thanks |
|
Quoted:
Won't happen. For all that talk about the 'State of Jefferson' etc., those folks are way too dependent on the producers in the metro areas. North NorCal doesn't have much outside of lumber and farming. Huge amounts of population on welfare or other gov't transfer money. I knew it was on that track when I first saw EBT Welfare ATM terminals in grocery stores. Huge numbers of plain white stupid unemployed - with nothing to do. Bill I disagree. Jefferson could stand on it's own very easily We have most all of the water. We have most of the timber. We would be strict on social programs, Ie. Work or get off the dole. It's the SoCal people that don't want to see Jefferson happen. Unfortunately, the voting base is in the large cities and it won't get passed. Look at the history of Jefferson. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor and us getting into WWll, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't happen. For all that talk about the 'State of Jefferson' etc., those folks are way too dependent on the producers in the metro areas. North NorCal doesn't have much outside of lumber and farming. Huge amounts of population on welfare or other gov't transfer money. I knew it was on that track when I first saw EBT Welfare ATM terminals in grocery stores. Huge numbers of plain white stupid unemployed - with nothing to do. Bill I disagree. Jefferson could stand on it's own very easily We have most all of the water. We have most of the timber. We would be strict on social programs, Ie. Work or get off the dole. It's the SoCal people that don't want to see Jefferson happen. Unfortunately, the voting base is in the large cities and it won't get passed. Look at the history of Jefferson. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor and us getting into WWll, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Don't demonize all SoCal people. Orange and San Diego Counties are both conservative and are also tired of all the policies imposed on them by the crookedly over-represented liberal enclaves. Both Orange and San Diego Counties have lost countless jobs due to the regulations imposed by Sacramento (just look at the aerospace industry) and would never benefit from tax money wasted on bullet trains or "green" jobs. The real "enemy" in SoCal is the LA metro area. The rest of SoCal doesn't want to keep paying for LA's social welfare system, sanctuary city status, or be subject to laws by their village idiot legislators like DeLeon or Portantino. |
| Splitting down the middle would be the best. I think all the bad politics and their supporting votes come out of LA/SF. I was listening to a late night radio talk show driving home from work a few years back and the discussion was about making California part of Mexico. This guy calls in and says he snuck in here years ago to find work and how Mexico was a no good place to live. He said it would be the worst thing that can happen to this state. And, if California were to become Mexico he would sneak into Oregon. Off subject, but his last line kinda make me laugh. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
CA native here. Here's one reason splitting the state will never happen: water rights. Northern CA has water, Southern does not. When I was a kid living in Sac. my southern CA relatives came to visit and made very derogatory remarks about our built-in pool and how much water it uses blah, blah, blah. My folks shut them down pretty quick when they said well it's our water that we send down to you in Anaheim (or someplace down there). That's only sort of true. The Central Valley gets it's water from the Sacramento River Delta (and the Sierra) and is always fighting for a greater share to irrigate more crops (which, all you CA haters, happen to supply ONE-THIRD of the nation's produce). LA gets its water from the Colorado River, and I'm not sure about San Diego, but water would only be an issue for the Central Valley. The main problem is, drumroll please, money. Period. No large region is wealthier than any other, and many regions are not wealthy at all (the *real* Northern California north of the greater SF Bay Area) and, despite their desire to create the State of Jefferson, haven't two farthings to rub together. The Central Valley isn't wealthy, the southern desert area isn't wealthy. California will never split, there simply isn't the money for two (or three) states. I disagree. If you look at California's GDP there is mroe than enough money for it to split into 3 states. HOwever, whichever state got stuck with the coastal regions with their handouts and sanctuary for illegals would be in bad shape right off the bat. |
| It would be awesome to split California into 3 states. The funny thing is, the Jefferson state would be the richest, as it supplys most of the central valleys water. Shasta damn anyone??? All the BS about how the true north cal is a bunch of loosers is just a uneducated mess. LA, SF, Sac, and Stockton are where most of our problems are at. Stockton is a fucked mess right now, city officals getting the golden handshake because no one wants to try and prove they were imbezialing funds (my aunt works for the the city of stockton), filing bankruptcy, one of the highest crime rates in the nation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
CA native here. Here's one reason splitting the state will never happen: water rights. Northern CA has water, Southern does not. When I was a kid living in Sac. my southern CA relatives came to visit and made very derogatory remarks about our built-in pool and how much water it uses blah, blah, blah. My folks shut them down pretty quick when they said well it's our water that we send down to you in Anaheim (or someplace down there). That's only sort of true. The Central Valley gets it's water from the Sacramento River Delta (and the Sierra) and is always fighting for a greater share to irrigate more crops (which, all you CA haters, happen to supply ONE-THIRD of the nation's produce). LA gets its water from the Colorado River, and I'm not sure about San Diego, but water would only be an issue for the Central Valley. The main problem is, drumroll please, money. Period. No large region is wealthier than any other, and many regions are not wealthy at all (the *real* Northern California north of the greater SF Bay Area) and, despite their desire to create the State of Jefferson, haven't two farthings to rub together. The Central Valley isn't wealthy, the southern desert area isn't wealthy. California will never split, there simply isn't the money for two (or three) states. A lot of the water that comes out of the Northern and central Calif. gets shipped down to LA. Via the Calif Aquaduct. From Wikipedia; "The Governor Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct is a system of canals, tunnels, and pipelines that conveys water collected from the Sierra Nevada Mountains and valleys of Northern- and Central California to Southern California.[2] The Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates and maintains the California Aqueduct, including two pumped-storage hydroelectric plants, Castaic and Gianelli. Gianelli is located at the base of San Luis Dam, which forms San Luis Reservoir, the largest offstream reservoir in the United States. The Castaic Dam and Castaic Power Plant are located on the northern end of Castaic Lake." If we didn't ship this water down but kept it in central you'd suffer greatly. I'm a Fresno native, lived there for 41 years and have a lot of family that farms there. Otherwise I agree with you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
CA native here. Here's one reason splitting the state will never happen: water rights. Northern CA has water, Southern does not. When I was a kid living in Sac. my southern CA relatives came to visit and made very derogatory remarks about our built-in pool and how much water it uses blah, blah, blah. My folks shut them down pretty quick when they said well it's our water that we send down to you in Anaheim (or someplace down there). That's only sort of true. The Central Valley gets it's water from the Sacramento River Delta (and the Sierra) and is always fighting for a greater share to irrigate more crops (which, all you CA haters, happen to supply ONE-THIRD of the nation's produce). LA gets its water from the Colorado River, and I'm not sure about San Diego, but water would only be an issue for the Central Valley. The main problem is, drumroll please, money. Period. No large region is wealthier than any other, and many regions are not wealthy at all (the *real* Northern California north of the greater SF Bay Area) and, despite their desire to create the State of Jefferson, haven't two farthings to rub together. The Central Valley isn't wealthy, the southern desert area isn't wealthy. California will never split, there simply isn't the money for two (or three) states. |