NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an idea. Since the people in washington can't agree on ANYTHING, why not split the united states into a group of loosely affilated microstates. The microstates would each be semi-autonomous, with the states banding together for the purposes of defense and the UN.

So what do you think?

Congratulations. You have just invented Switzerland.

Didn't we try that already? Articles of Confederation?

wait.. isn't it already the.. United States of America??

I swear we have this system already.. unless I am mistaken or do not know what microstates are.

Shot with a hammer.

I swear we have this system already.. unless I am mistaken or do not know what microstates are.

They are like microphones, only somewhat more statty.

wait.. isn't it already the.. United States of America??

I swear we have this system already.. unless I am mistaken or do not know what microstates are.

Now we call it The Loosely Affiliated Microstates of America.
LAMA Everyone likes lamas!

Now we call it The Loosely Affiliated Microstates of America.
LAMA Everyone likes lamas!

Stick another L word in front!

Eh I would agree with this.

Wasnt there a huge thread on this a week ago? I supported it then, preferring to split it into about three to five pieces.

Stick another L word in front!

Laughable?

Literally.

wait.. isn't it already the.. United States of America??

I swear we have this system already.. unless I am mistaken or do not know what microstates are.

No, 'cause they are united on matters of government as well. These aren't. This way Massachussetians aren't saddled with anti-gay laws, and Kansasites don't have to put up with abortion.

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Let the liberal states have their welfare and UHS while the more sensible states have low taxes.

I have an idea. Since the people in washington can't agree on ANYTHING, why not split the united states into a group of loosely affilated microstates. The microstates would each be semi-autonomous, with the states banding together for the purposes of defense and the UN.

So what do you think?

You have described the Confederacy that existed before the federal government, albeit your system has a defense.

Of course, that system failed.

So no.

I don't know it it's reasonable to grant independence to all states, but some kind of dismantling might be a good idea.

Actually, even though I'm not American, I'm still pissed off at the South for losing the civil war. It was the only time America lost a war for freedom.

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Let the liberal states have their welfare and UHS while the more sensible states have...

unpaved roads

Of course, that system failed.

not in any meaningful sense

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Let the liberal states have their welfare and UHS while the more sensible states have low taxes.

You do realize that those liberal states are the ones who are sending tax money into your "more sensible" states, yes?

Anyway, yeah, I support more of a confederation than a strict federal government...either by region or by state.

You do realize that those liberal states are the ones who are sending tax money into your "more sensible" states, yes?

Anyway, yeah, I support more of a confederation than a strict federal government...either by region or by state.

By cutting the useless programs there would be enough money left over to do what needs to be done in state.

By cutting the useless programs there would be enough money left over to do what needs to be done in state.
It is still your "sensible" states that benefit from the current system, despite all their complaining. You want lower taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html)? Then stop taking so damn much (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/zbronto/usa_blank2copy.jpg).

It is still your "sensible" states that benefit from the current system, despite all their complaining. You want lower taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html)? Then stop taking so damn much (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/zbronto/usa_blank2copy.jpg).

By cutting less important programs the need for the extra spending would be gone

By cutting less important programs the need for the extra spending would be gone

It is illogical for states to simultaneously complain about high taxes while recieving more benefits from those high taxes. Either stop complaining, or get your representatives to get rid of that "extra" spending. Considering your state was 14th, getting $1.45 for every dollar of tax, I'd suggest getting on that.

You do realize that those liberal states are the ones who are sending tax money into your "more sensible" states, yes?
You do realize that its the Republicans in liberal states that are sending tax money to the "more sensible" states?

Even in Massachusetts, an overwhelmingly Blue state, those making over $200,000 voted for Bush. In every other state in the country, the difference was more pronounced (Bush beat Kerry by at least 10% in every income level above 50,000, besting him by 28% nationally for those who make over $200,000). The top two income quintiles, comprising of households with an income of above $55,000 per year, pay 84.3% of federal taxes, and also vote strongly for Bush. Needless to say, the poor voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, and also receive the most benefit from things like Social Security, Medicare, public education, and subsidized transport.

Wow...I'm surprised this didn't go down in flames.

Stick another L word in front!

The one-L lama
He's a priest
The two-L llama
He's a beast

Been suggested, 25 years ago: The Nine Nations of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America).

Shot: With a hammer.

Can't we just make his nation a smouldering crater?

Already tried, didn't work.

Shot, not with a hammer, but with a spoon. :D

It is still your "sensible" states that benefit from the current system, despite all their complaining. You want lower taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html)? Then stop taking so damn much (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/zbronto/usa_blank2copy.jpg).

There's also another correlation between the taker states and giver states - those that take more tend to have less large cities; those that give more tend to be more city-esque. Seven of the ten largest states by population are givers (five of them are blue states and two, Texas and Georgia, are red.) In addition, of the ten least populous states, only New Hampshire and Delaware are givers; the rest are takers (that's five red states and three blue ones.)

California, Texas, and New York are the three largest states, and all are givers. The largest taker is Florida, and frankly, disaster relief may be a chunk of that. The smallest giver is Delaware.

In the three largest states, I can think of lots of cities - Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, as well as all their outlying areas...plus we have Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and even Austin if you're inclined to count them, as well as Buffalo and New York City. Considering that Illinois is in fifth place, we have to include Chicago; I am ignoring Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh because they're in taker states and are therefore inconvenient to me.

States that are givers tend to be populous states with large cities. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but neither is the rule that blue states tend to be populous with large cities.

Therefore, people making the argument that "Blue states are givers" are making a logical leap. I propose two premises.

Blue states tend to be populous with large cities.
Giver states tend to be populous with large cities.

If I were to give the following premises:

All trucks are gasoline-powered vehicles.
All lawnmowers are gasoline-powered vehicles.

The conclusion "All trucks are lawnmowers" would be deemed insane. Therefore, the notion that "Blue states are giver states" doesn't make sense either.

And furthermore, my home state of Ohio is seventh in population, is chocked full of large cities...and yet, we're a red taker state. Poop on us.

*snip, but just for brevity*
See, my issue isn't so much that whole giver/taker mentality. You mentioned disaster relife. That is coming from giver states. The welfare they want to cut so badly? It actually boosts their economies by bringing in more money.

Hell, the two highest Giver states are CT and NJ. They are the two wealthiest states, thanks to NYC. And yet, CT has three of the poorest cities in the US (New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford [New London is also quite poor]), and NJ has its major problem areas.


My point in all of it isn't so much about democrat or republican...it is to point out that if you benefit, then quit complaining. If you still complain, do something about it. Stop building roads and bridges that lead to nowhere. Lobby congress. But please, just stop bitching (not directed at you, IHP...just continuing the rant :) )

*snipped, also for brevity*

You're quite right about the giver/donor rules not being absolute. Michigan is a blue donor state but we only have two sizeable cities, Detroit (metro area of about 5 millions) and Grand Rapids (metro area of 1.3 millions). Being a donor state to places like Utah (who has a 2.8% unemployment rate) while our economy is suffering (7.1% unemployment here) bothers me immensely. We could really use that money here rather than sending it to people who don't need it as much.

You're quite right about the giver/donor rules not being absolute. Michigan is a blue donor state but we only have two sizeable cities, Detroit (metro area of about 5 millions) and Grand Rapids (metro area of 1.3 millions). Being a donor state to places like Utah (who has a 2.8% unemployment rate) while our economy is suffering (7.1% unemployment here) bothers me immensely. We could really use that money here rather than sending it to people who don't need it as much.
Sounds like the "equalization payment" scheme we have here in Canada. The "have" provinces contribute more tax so that the "have-not" provinces can have more funds, while ignoring the fact that a large city like Toronto is falling apart at the seams due to inadequate funding and the lack of actual equality in this scheme, as Alberta pays in way less than Ontario, but has more money due to its booming oil industry.

Sounds like the "equalization payment" scheme we have here in Canada. The "have" provinces contribute more tax so that the "have-not" provinces can have more funds, while ignoring the fact that a large city like Toronto is falling apart at the seams due to inadequate funding and the lack of actual equality in this scheme, as Alberta pays in way less than Ontario, but has more money due to its booming oil industry.

What I would much prefer is that most of the tax burden and responsibility for social programs shift from the Federal government to the states. Of course there needs to be Federal programs and funding for this like disaster relief and certain large projects that can't be feasibly handled by one state, but Federal pork is out of control and a lot of the money gets wasted on stupid projects just so a Representative or Senator can say they brought money home. I'm not sure about other states, but I know my state is far more fiscally responsible than Uncle Sam and I'd rather we spent our money how we want not how we're told to from on high.

What I would much prefer is that most of the tax burden and responsibility for social programs shift from the Federal government to the states. Of course there needs to be Federal programs and funding for this like disaster relief and certain large projects that can't be feasibly handled by one state, but Federal pork is out of control and a lot of the money gets wasted on stupid projects just so a Representative or Senator can say they brought money home. I'm not sure about other states, but I know my state is far more fiscally responsible than Uncle Sam and I'd rather we spent our money how we want not how we're told to from on high.
Yes, indeed.

The federal government should have limited spending power. Apart from defence, national parks, environmental issues, border control and immigration, the federal government should have no spending control, and leave it to the provinces/states and give them more money so they can spend it practically. As well as abolish any type of 'equalization' payment schema, which actually screws over the "haves".

What I would much prefer is that most of the tax burden and responsibility for social programs shift from the Federal government to the states. Of course there needs to be Federal programs and funding for this like disaster relief and certain large projects that can't be feasibly handled by one state, but Federal pork is out of control and a lot of the money gets wasted on stupid projects just so a Representative or Senator can say they brought money home. I'm not sure about other states, but I know my state is far more fiscally responsible than Uncle Sam and I'd rather we spent our money how we want not how we're told to from on high.

Yes, indeed.

The federal government should have limited spending power. Apart from defence, national parks, environmental issues, border control and immigration, the federal government should have no spending control, and leave it to the provinces/states and give them more money so they can spend it practically. As well as abolish any type of 'equalization' payment schema, which actually screws over the "haves".
Oddly, this brings us back on topic, and is a major reason why I support regionalization. A small state like Rhode Island or Alaska probably couldn't afford to support itself easily, which is why I don't like bringing it to only states. However, by dividing into regions (New England, Midatlantic (or join the two into Northeast), midwest, southeast, southwest, west...that kinda thing. This would allow individual states the ability to function individually, allow for larger projects that aren't big enough for the feds, but are too large for states, and allow the feds to do minimal work.

CT is the perfect example of a "have" state being screwed over. We are the richest state with the richest county in America. We also have 4 very poor cities, and many poor communities with no clear solution without insufferable state taxes, which would chase our wealth out to New Jersey and leave CT in a dying state.

See, my issue isn't so much that whole giver/taker mentality. You mentioned disaster relife. That is coming from giver states. The welfare they want to cut so badly? It actually boosts their economies by bringing in more money.

Hell, the two highest Giver states are CT and NJ. They are the two wealthiest states, thanks to NYC. And yet, CT has three of the poorest cities in the US (New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford [New London is also quite poor]), and NJ has its major problem areas.

That's one of the big ironies of the way tax money is distributed. Wealthier states tend to dish out more and be happier about dishing it out than the taker states are about receiving it. Frankly, if the giver states told the taker states, "Fine, whatever; you can do without," then the taker states would be up shit creek and up in arms. If CT and NJ decided to spend money to revitalize their own economies rather than seeing their tax dollars shipped out to the Midwest...that is, if they could stop their money from leaving...then it would either make the taker states happy by cutting welfare or it would make them even more mad, thus proving that they are impossible to please. They hate the welfare programs but hate when they're cut. And they would probably hate when they are brought back.

My point in all of it isn't so much about democrat or republican...it is to point out that if you benefit, then quit complaining. If you still complain, do something about it. Stop building roads and bridges that lead to nowhere. Lobby congress. But please, just stop bitching (not directed at you, IHP...just continuing the rant :) )

My point was that it wasn't about Democrat or Republican also. My point was that there were other explanations for the situation. That said, changing it is probably not feasible. The only change that could happen is for people from giver states to elect pork kings and queens to Congress and bring a lot of that money back home on purpose.

I could just imagine someone running on a campaign like that. "I'm Joe Senator, and I approve this message. You know what it's high time for? A little pork being brought home to Texas. Elect me, Joe Senator, to Congress and I will fight for pork-laden bills that will stop money from hemorrhaging from our cities and bring it home to create jobs and bridges to nowhere. Oh yeah, and a mile-thick death trap for all them damn illegals from New Mexico. We need one of...what the hell do you mean, New Mexico's a state? We're trying to keep all them damn illegal New Mexicans from getting here into Texas...why do you say it Tejas? It's not Tay-HAAS, man...and it's not meh-hee-ko, either. Oh, the hell with it. Vote Joe Senator if you like pork."

Stick another L word in front!

Lesbian Loosely Affiliated Microstates of America.

Everyone loves Lesbian LLAMAS... (RAS syndrome'd!)

You'll do realize that there is no such thing as a true democracy?!? Even the venerated greek and roman societies had no true democracy (Sparta was a dictarship with a king). True Democracy is like utopia...a dream created by people who wanted more out of life and saw all the hardships it had to throw at them. :headbang: If we had pure democracy...it would be so freakin' boring! So stop thinking that by complaining enough it will change; if you want to change something...do it yourself. And don't pull, "I don't have that kind of money" or "I'm just one man in a sea of millions!". Remember, it took one man to voice his opinion and hundreds backed him for it. (Peter Zinger).

Queen Aslein's Mun.

Visit a land of beauty and wonder, where living is simple and people are friendly. Visit Avaloar. Stay for vacation and enjoy our wonderful forests and parks. But remember, it is the land of mists...you might just run into a dragon one time.

Been suggested, 25 years ago: The Nine Nations of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America).

To be fair, that idea is pretty stupid. The 'nations' it proposes are nothing but silly stereotypes that are not even present in real life, let alone in the geographically precise regions it sets out.

The one-L lama
He's a priest
The two-L llama
He's a beast

A one-L lama is a monk
A two-L llama has a hump
I bet a pair of silk pyjamas
There arent' any three-T lllamas.

May I suggest the
largely loosely affiliated microstates of America