February 28, 200818 yr But California's water and energy come from conservative states. So conservatives wouldn't let the liberal government pay for that? Ooops, conservatives would privatize the water and energy, and since the liberal government would have tons of cash on hand, they'd be the high bidder...
February 28, 200818 yr So conservatives wouldn't let the liberal government pay for that? Ooops, conservatives would privatize the water and energy, and since the liberal government would have tons of cash on hand, they'd be the high bidder... You're right except for one thing. California would turn into one giant commune. They wouldn't have any money to spend.
February 28, 200818 yr So conservatives wouldn't let the liberal government pay for that? Ooops, conservatives would privatize the water and energy, and since the liberal government would have tons of cash on hand, they'd be the high bidder... Where would those "tons of cash" be generated?
February 28, 200818 yr Where would those "tons of cash" be generated? My guess would be from the 20% income tax they would charge their citizens. Or the insanly high income tax they would charge their businesses.
February 28, 200818 yr So conservatives wouldn't let the liberal government pay for that? Ooops, conservatives would privatize the water and energy, and since the liberal government would have tons of cash on hand, they'd be the high bidder... One problem with your theory: in the short run, you are probably right. But the insane taxes that the liberal government would charge would diminish the ability of a private citizen to save any money. Businesses wouldn't have the able to obtain loanable funds, and the standard of living would stay low. Firms would be able to produce a lot of goods, but the lack of technological change (and real economic incentive for an entrepreneur) would keep the quality low. From here they would have a choice. They could either: A) Keep trucking along with high taxes, and be the Soviet Union, and fail because of lack of innovation as the world passes them. B) Buy from the conservative country, and become even in more in debt to them.
February 28, 200818 yr The economic trade imbalance with the conservative states (you guys get cotton, we get everything else) would keep the liberal ship afloat. We'll have LOWER taxes because we'll have more money and businesses (funny that the liberal country is a supply-side paradise, huh) and because we won't be cramming money down the economic sinkholes of places like West Virginia and Mississippi.
February 28, 200818 yr Well lets take the 2004 map Ohio can go either way depending on the year. So you have the higher population/wealthier states. Agriculturally, Californina, Washington, Illinois and Ohio make enough food to probably sustain the "blue country". IMO the Red country would have a harder time starting up their economy since a big chunk of the wealth is gone. Or you can have these countries.......:lol:
February 28, 200818 yr Will the conservatives allow casinos to stay in Nevada? I'm pretty sure liberals get Nevada in the end.
February 28, 200818 yr Well lets take the 2004 map Ohio can go either way depending on the year. So you have the higher population/wealthier states. Agriculturally, Californina, Washington, Illinois and Ohio make enough food to probably sustain the "blue country". IMO the Red country would have a harder time starting up their economy since a big chunk of the wealth is gone. Or you can have these countries.......:lol: I would be exporting many of my dollars toward the blue country as California, Oregon, and Washington are the best the US has to offer in wine. I would probably have to shift those dollars to Bordeaux and Australia instead...
February 28, 200818 yr I am somewhat surprised that you posted this, but I definitely agree. :thumb: It is extremely difficult to paint me into a corner and keep me there.
February 28, 200818 yr Well lets take the 2004 map Ohio can go either way depending on the year. So you have the higher population/wealthier states. Agriculturally, Californina, Washington, Illinois and Ohio make enough food to probably sustain the "blue country". IMO the Red country would have a harder time starting up their economy since a big chunk of the wealth is gone. Or you can have these countries.......:lol: That is funny right there. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Plus the red states would have to spend tons of money on keeping the immigrants out. Immigrants spend alot of time in those states to work for low paying jobs that no one else wants.
February 28, 200818 yr Will the conservatives allow casinos to stay in Nevada? I'm pretty sure liberals get Nevada in the end. In Stephen King's book The Stand, the forces of good were headquarted in Colorado Springs (home of Focus on the Family) and the forces of evil had their HQ in Las Vegas.
February 28, 200818 yr In Stephen King's book The Stand, the forces of good were headquarted in Colorado Springs (home of Focus on the Family) and the forces of evil had their HQ in Las Vegas.The forces of good were also a commune.
February 28, 200818 yr It is extremely difficult to paint me into a corner and keep me there. :thumb: :thumb::thumb:
February 28, 200818 yr My prediction: The Conservative side would hypocritize each other to a point where the only ones left are 7 evangelistic kings and their respective tribes of slaves and warriors. The liberal side would be constantly having their leaders killed for being too authoritative and end up a mindless yet heavily populated (no abstainence would outdo legalized abortions and birth control) rabble. Assuming all other nations have lost interest in the undoubtadly toxic wasteland, the two sides would go to war, only to have the winning (it would be a toss-up) survivors be shocked to find all the political moderates coming out of their bomb shelters and creating a stable nation where common sense and caring communities emerge.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.