Californias
- Thread starter BoilersRock
- Start date
I'd guess you'd get a 4-2 split politically in favor of the Democrats, which means it would never make it in Congress.
Same reason why DC will never become a state...or Puerto Rico (if they ever actually get a clear majority that wants it).
But if we are splitting up states, let's go ahead and split up Texas into 4 or 5 too. El Paso, Lubbock, Houston, Austin, and Dallas could all be state capitals.
Same reason why DC will never become a state...or Puerto Rico (if they ever actually get a clear majority that wants it).
But if we are splitting up states, let's go ahead and split up Texas into 4 or 5 too. El Paso, Lubbock, Houston, Austin, and Dallas could all be state capitals.
Calling a state "Silicon Valley" is idiotic. It also sounds like his company just wants to split Silicon Valley off into its own area so that the companies there can avoid paying taxes for the poor in other parts of the state. Portioning off areas of our states small enough to encompass only cities and their burbs is a very bad idea.
I've read about similar efforts in Colorado, and Virginia (I think), and even a few in Illinois that support building a prison fence around Chicago and let the rest of the state live in peace. I wonder if it's not just a method to get to 57 states so followers of the President can say he was a prophet when he mentioned visiting 57 states on the campaign trail (tic of course).
But the reasoning in all of the efforts seems to be basically the same thing, the bureacracy has grown too large, and increasing resources are devoted to urban areas to the detriment of the rural areas, whether that is an accurate representation of what is going on or not. Obviously some in the urban areas see it as where most of the job creation, wealth creaton, and tax base are generated, and the poor rural areas drain from the progress and culture of the cities.
While it might improve services and representation at the state level, it also seems like it would result in even more polarization between the districts and the represenation at the Federal level. Would each new state still have 2 Senators, would the House still have 435 members divided by population, or would that be exanded (increased costs associated with each Senate and House member's staff, offices, lifetime pensions, etc?).
But the reasoning in all of the efforts seems to be basically the same thing, the bureacracy has grown too large, and increasing resources are devoted to urban areas to the detriment of the rural areas, whether that is an accurate representation of what is going on or not. Obviously some in the urban areas see it as where most of the job creation, wealth creaton, and tax base are generated, and the poor rural areas drain from the progress and culture of the cities.
While it might improve services and representation at the state level, it also seems like it would result in even more polarization between the districts and the represenation at the Federal level. Would each new state still have 2 Senators, would the House still have 435 members divided by population, or would that be exanded (increased costs associated with each Senate and House member's staff, offices, lifetime pensions, etc?).
Re: here's my proposal
Conversely, we could also have all kinds of ultra-liberal states in California that would take the fiscal problems in Sacramento, Riverside, and Santa (insert name here) up north and bring them up to the state level! It'd be a neat experiment!
Often, what happens in California happens across the country eventually. Fortunately, Gov Brown is a pretty smart and prudent guy when it comes to state money, in spite of his party affiliation, and CA has managed to not go in the tank like many of the local governments in this state.
Conversely, we could also have all kinds of ultra-liberal states in California that would take the fiscal problems in Sacramento, Riverside, and Santa (insert name here) up north and bring them up to the state level! It'd be a neat experiment!
Often, what happens in California happens across the country eventually. Fortunately, Gov Brown is a pretty smart and prudent guy when it comes to state money, in spite of his party affiliation, and CA has managed to not go in the tank like many of the local governments in this state.
Re: here's my proposal
You need to read up more. Brown's done some of both, sport. But, as you and your ilk know, more government is extremely difficult to get rid of once it's in place.
I will never understand folks like you who seem intelligent but still want to give more and more of their money to someone else to provide subpar services for the general public.
This post was edited on 7/16 10:30 AM by gr8indoorsman
You need to read up more. Brown's done some of both, sport. But, as you and your ilk know, more government is extremely difficult to get rid of once it's in place.
I will never understand folks like you who seem intelligent but still want to give more and more of their money to someone else to provide subpar services for the general public.
This post was edited on 7/16 10:30 AM by gr8indoorsman
Democrats always do
"some of both" Republicans only seem to like one half of the equation.
The money I give to the government provides milk for poor kids, housing for poor moms, job training, and a whole host of other things that society needs to function. "Folks like me" understand that people are more important than money, so giving up some of it is mighty fine.
If folks like you were simply about making government more efficient, and less wasteful, I'd be right there, but you aren't. You are about replacing government with, well, nothing.
"some of both" Republicans only seem to like one half of the equation.
The money I give to the government provides milk for poor kids, housing for poor moms, job training, and a whole host of other things that society needs to function. "Folks like me" understand that people are more important than money, so giving up some of it is mighty fine.
If folks like you were simply about making government more efficient, and less wasteful, I'd be right there, but you aren't. You are about replacing government with, well, nothing.
Re: Democrats always do
Just to be clear, you did not "give" the money to government. It was taken from you under force of law with the threat of imprisonment. If you thought the government was the best to use your money, you would have cut an additional check to the US Treasury, knowing that they would use money properly. Instead, you hopefully gave money to other causes and charities. Republicans are not cold-hearted folks who want babies and single moms to die. In fact, they give more money voluntarily than Democrats voluntarily do. It is not charity when it is mandatory.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Just to be clear, you did not "give" the money to government. It was taken from you under force of law with the threat of imprisonment. If you thought the government was the best to use your money, you would have cut an additional check to the US Treasury, knowing that they would use money properly. Instead, you hopefully gave money to other causes and charities. Republicans are not cold-hearted folks who want babies and single moms to die. In fact, they give more money voluntarily than Democrats voluntarily do. It is not charity when it is mandatory.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Re: Democrats always do
I want government. I want government based on what John Adams wanted government to do, not a government that wants to have its hands in literally EVERYTHING.
The money the government TAKES from you is used to fund weapons systems that never come to fruition, are delayed, or run well overbudget, it is siphoned for good ideas that aren't, it is used to fund teambuilding events in Las Vegas for bureaucrats. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in both the military and the federal government it literally makes me sick. And the reason for it? The entire establishment is too friggin' big.
I want government. I want government based on what John Adams wanted government to do, not a government that wants to have its hands in literally EVERYTHING.
Re: Democrats always do
Exactly. I'm sure qaz is using every tax advantage to which he's entitled just like the rest of us. But I do wonder why he'd do that when his tax dollars only feed babies and such.
Re: so imperfect humans
By the way, I'm no libertarian.
I agree. Logically, we should limit the number of humans involved, rather than involving even more and thus compounding the imperfection and generating more waste at a geometrically increasing rate.
By the way, I'm no libertarian.
Re: you are sure?
Then again, you are probably wise enough to know not to waste money, so thus you don't give any more to the government than they require you to pay.
Yes, I am quite certain you took advantage of every tax break you could to lower your tax bill. I am certain you didn't pay more Federal income tax than you legally had to. If you did, you did it out of ignorance, not out of the goodness of your heart, which kind of makes you a hypocrite. You should be throwing as much money as possible at the government since you're convinced they feed babies, build roads, and create jobs.
Then again, you are probably wise enough to know not to waste money, so thus you don't give any more to the government than they require you to pay.
Re: Democrats always do
It is also on left-wing chatrooms like the NY Times.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Democrats are good at giving away other people's money, but not their own
It is also on left-wing chatrooms like the NY Times.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Democrats are good at giving away other people's money, but not their own
nope
I took advantage only of the standard exemption, that's it. I didn't take advantage of any other exemptions, I didn't even look.
I don't consider it a "waste" of money to pay my taxes and I don't spend effort looking for "every tax break I can."
I took advantage only of the standard exemption, that's it. I didn't take advantage of any other exemptions, I didn't even look.
I don't consider it a "waste" of money to pay my taxes and I don't spend effort looking for "every tax break I can."
Re: nope
Agree to disagree. They (we) don't waste all of the taxpayers money, but they (we) waste a lot of it. For example, I'd rather opt out of Social Security and have the option to save/invest that money on my own.
