PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues North and South for the 21st century


wild1
04-12-2009, 08:50 PM
Today in our political environment we see things more polarized than ever before, and sometimes you see people express a bit of a separatist sentiment vis-a-vis people on the other side of the political aisle. Blue staters talking about red staters like they're relics from another time, red staters saying they think blue staters should think of moving to Canada or California or something else.

In some places, people are even starting to move out of states and cities in the US due to the prevailing political attitudes - manifested through taxation and whatever. In New York City, I know there's been some concern that the highest earners who keep the lights on in the city are being bullied out by taxation, and I've heard of people moving elsewhere from other areas for reasons that stem from politics.

I wonder if it wouldn't be an interesting topic - what if the United States actually became two places? If there were two new nations where conservatism prevailed in one, and liberalism in another?

Take the electoral maps from say 2000, and think about that perhaps being a rough outline. Obviously not all the states are contiguous, but let's play a little loose here.

What do you think would happen? Would business flee the LSA for the CSA for the favorable business environment? Would the downtrodden immigrate to the LSA in order to benefit from the social welfare programs offered by the new socialist state? Would both thrive? Only one?

Assume the conservatives and liberals could implement their own agendas in each nation without much opposition.

Perhaps also assume that each current US citizen could choose which place to transfer their citizenship at the beginning. (After that, politics decide whatever entry barriers there might be)

Would you move to the CSA or the LSA? What do you think life would be like in each?

HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 08:54 PM
Liberals would consentrate, have no tax base, and every freeloader would flock there making their situation worse. Eventually their society would crumble and they would cry out for help. And as is normally the case conservatives, who are known to be far more willing to help than liberals, would bail them out again.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2009, 08:55 PM
Well, the way I see it, if we really followed our system of federalism you could attain such things. But someone always wants to bully someone or some region to tax them for their benefits whether it's through tariffs for govt subsidies to busines or whatever.

If Cali wanted to go commie it could.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2009, 08:56 PM
Liberals would consentrate, have no tax base, and every freeloader would flock there making their situation worse. Eventually their society would crumble and they would cry out for help. And as is normally the case conservatives, who are known to be far more willing to help than liberals, would bail them out again.

Yeah, but that's not a bad thing is it. I kinda like those results. Kinda like a bunch of Soviet-Mini-Me's. :D

HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 09:01 PM
Liberalism is not sustainable.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2009, 09:02 PM
Liberalism is not sustainable.

Please don't call it liberalism. It doesn't do it justice. That's what our Founders were....classical liberals. It's progressivism.

wild1
04-12-2009, 09:09 PM
Maybe it would help to start with developing a more defined picture of each place.

I think in the CSA, you would have a flat national tax, or maybe a national sales tax. In any case I think taxation would be quite low, given that social programs would be a shadow of what they are now. I think we could assume that corporate taxation would be lower than it is in the US today.

Gun rights would be protected in the CSA in a more unassailable way than they are in the US currently.

The CSA's borders would be closed and secure, presumably people illegally in the country would be deported... citizenship/work requirements would likely be high for non-citizens.

Presumably a social conservative agenda would be implemented as well on abortion/marriage/etc.

HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 09:10 PM
I'll think about that....too many "isms" anyway. By calling it progressivism, do you mean to say that Capitalism/Conservatives are not or cannot be progressive?

I hate labels.

HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Maybe it would help to start with developing a more defined picture of each place.

I think in the CSA, you would have a flat national tax, or maybe a national sales tax. In any case I think taxation would be quite low, given that social programs would be a shadow of what they are now. I think we could assume that corporate taxation would be lower than it is in the US today.

Gun rights would be protected in the CSA in a more unassailable way than they are in the US currently.

The CSA's borders would be closed and secure, presumably people illegally in the country would be deported... citizenship/work requirements would likely be high for non-citizens.

Presumably a social conservative agenda would be implemented as well on abortion/marriage/etc.


All the happy people would be in this conservative side and the unhappy would be in the other leading to massive emotional depression and discontent.

wild1
04-12-2009, 09:12 PM
I'll think about that....too many "isms" anyway. By calling it progressivism, do you mean to say that Capitalism/Conservatives are not or cannot be progressive?

I hate labels.

I'm not trying to have a debate on who is black enough for someone else, as it were. I hope we can stay on topic.

I'm thinking of, a small-government, free-market approach being implemented in the one and a western-europe style socialist state in the other.

The prevailing definitions today of liberal and conservative as per their use in common parlance

wild1
04-12-2009, 09:18 PM
All the happy people would be in this conservative side and the unhappy would be in the other leading to massive emotional depression and discontent.

Beyond the stereotypes, who do you think would choose to live in each place?

Would the LSA be full of welfare queens? What if they were welfare queens who were otherwise social conservatives? Would they go to the CSA knowing they would have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Would they go to the LSA where the government cheese still flows like wine, or probably even becomes more plentiful?

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 09:25 PM
We are more purple than red and blue. Nobody wants to secede from the country, and more people are opening up to more liberal eonomic and social policies (regulation, national health care system) as opposed to more laissez-faire economic policies.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 09:28 PM
Beyond the stereotypes, who do you think would choose to live in each place?

Would the LSA be full of welfare queens? What if they were welfare queens who were otherwise social conservatives? Would they go to the CSA knowing they would have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Would they go to the LSA where the government cheese still flows like wine, or probably even becomes more plentiful?

Would there be any safety nets in your CSA?

wild1
04-12-2009, 09:30 PM
For the LSA... I'm picturing a place with high taxes like you'd find in similar states around the world. Presumably the corporate taxes would remain where they are, relatively high compared to the rest of the world.

I would guess that health care will be universal and administered by the government.

Immigration policy you could probably use your imagination on. Perhaps a sanctuary environment like you find in some cities in the US currently.

Abortion would be legal, I wonder if it wouldn't be state funded. Prominent Dems like Bill Bradley I believe have advocated this in the past.

Perhaps some form of gun ownership would be legal, but if other countries are any judge, I think it's safe to assume there probably wouldn't be any, at least at some point in the future.

What else?

wild1
04-12-2009, 09:37 PM
Would there be any safety nets in your CSA?

We're here to talk about such things.

I think there is room in conservatism for food stamp programs and such though for households with children.

Maybe there could even be unemployment insurance programs. Perhaps you could bank unemployment insurance, by working, for a set number of weeks. Once you've contributed that amount to the fund, no more is ever taken unless you draw it out. A tax free unemployment savings account that the government insures? Just one idea.

Things like job training programs, making higher education more affordable - those forms of government spending are actually investments that pay dividends.

I think the CSA would spend government funds on investment rather than payments, like programs that start as safety nets but turn into hammocks.

wazu
04-12-2009, 09:54 PM
I think there is room in conservatism for food stamp programs and such though for households with children.

My opinion on food stamps: There should be weigh-ins based on the standard height/weight charts. Anybody who is above their ideal body weight should be rejected. Let's keep this program for the needy.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:05 PM
My opinion on food stamps: There should be weigh-ins based on the standard height/weight charts. Anybody who is above their ideal body weight should be rejected. Let's keep this program for the needy.

Their "ideal?" That could go horribly wrong. Just make it so certain foods (candy, soda, ice cream) are not permitted as well as the beer and cigs like they are now.

Starving a fat person doesn't make them get healthier by the way.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:08 PM
We're here to talk about such things.

I think there is room in conservatism for food stamp programs and such though for households with children.

Maybe there could even be unemployment insurance programs. Perhaps you could bank unemployment insurance, by working, for a set number of weeks. Once you've contributed that amount to the fund, no more is ever taken unless you draw it out. A tax free unemployment savings account that the government insures? Just one idea.

Things like job training programs, making higher education more affordable - those forms of government spending are actually investments that pay dividends.

I think the CSA would spend government funds on investment rather than payments, like programs that start as safety nets but turn into hammocks.

What do you consider to be wasteful safety net programs?

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Their "ideal?" That could go horribly wrong. Just make it so certain foods (candy, soda, ice cream) are not permitted as well as the beer and cigs like they are now.

Starving a fat person doesn't make them get healthier by the way.

I'm not interested in making fat people healthier through government programs. Just want to limit hand-outs to people who really are in danger of starvation. And if a would-be starving person somehow finds a way to maintain their existence eating nothing but ice cream, I really don't care.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:16 PM
I'm not interested in making fat people healthier through government programs. Just want to limit hand-outs to people who really are in danger of starvation.

I assume the fat poor person does have a hard time feeding him or herself, hence the food stamps in the first place. Taking him or her off the food stamps means they would eventually be in danger of starvation. If a person can not afford to provide themself and their family with healthy nourishment, that's where the program comes in the first place.

And if a would-be starving person somehow finds a way to maintain their existence eating nothing but ice cream, I really don't care.

I know this is all hypothetical, but is there no room for reality?

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:22 PM
Plus, if you properly design a food stamp program, you can also benefit the small, independent family farms with their produce, dairy, meats, instead of the giant junk food corporations that provide cheap, factory food in the first place.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:23 PM
I assume the fat poor person does have a hard time feeding him or herself, hence the food stamps in the first place. Taking him or her off the food stamps means they would eventually be in danger of starvation. If a person can not afford to provide themself and their family with healthy nourishment, that's where the program comes in the first place.

If somebody is truly having a hard time feeding themselves, they won't be fat. As the pounds melt away, eventually they will weigh in and be allowed back on the program. It's not a one-time deal. They can come back every week and try again if they want.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:24 PM
Plus, if you properly design a food stamp program, you can also benefit the small, independent family farms with their produce, dairy, meats, instead of the giant junk food corporations that provide cheap, factory food in the first place.

No thanks on the Socialism.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:30 PM
If somebody is truly having a hard time feeding themselves, they won't be fat. As the pounds melt away, eventually they will weigh in and be allowed back on the program. It's not a one-time deal. They can come back every week and try again if they want.

But we literally see poor (hard time feeding themselves) obese people, which means there is a significant disconnection somewhere along the lines in current programs in many circumstances. In order of importance, 1.) Cheaper food is less expensive. 2.) Junk food is a pleasure to those with little other material pleasures. 3.) Health education is sorely lacking.
Starving someone doesn't help anyone.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:32 PM
No thanks on the Socialism.

You've already granted there being a food stamps program, but you can't take the complete step in making a food stamps program that is more effective and helpful for both contributors and beneficiaries? Yes, down with corporate junk food in the food stamp program, that is a given.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:38 PM
But we literally see poor (hard time feeding themselves) obese people, which means there is a significant disconnection somewhere along the lines in current programs in many circumstances. In order of importance, 1.) Cheaper food is less expensive. 2.) Junk food is a pleasure to those with little other material pleasures. 3.) Health education is sorely lacking.
Starving someone doesn't help anyone.

Nobody who is obese is "starving". Starving is what you do when you run out of body fat and start burning muscle and brain tissue, literally cannibalizing yourself to death.

If somebody is 350 lbs and telling me they need food stamps to keep from starving to death, they are full of shit. Body fat is nothing but stored food.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:41 PM
You've already granted there being a food stamps program, but you can't take the complete step in making a food stamps program that is more effective and helpful for both contributors and beneficiaries? Yes, down with corporate junk food in the food stamp program, that is a given.

Anything you think you can manipulate in such a manner will ultimately be proven wrong and have unintended consequences. And yes, I could go with a food stamp program if it met my requirements. I'd know for sure that at least I wasn't funding people who eat to a point that their own body admits it's way too much food and starts converting it into massive amounts of body fat.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:45 PM
And one more thing: I have nothing against fat people. I have a spare tire of my own I'd like to get rid of. But we are talking about a government program, one which we know will be exploited by every angle possible. But it's tough to get past the scale. You can fill out forms and lie all day, but once you step on the scale, the situation can be measured pretty objectively.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 10:47 PM
Nobody who is obese is "starving". Starving is what you do when you run out of body fat and start burning muscle and brain tissue, literally cannibalizing yourself to death.

If somebody is 350 lbs and telling me they need food stamps to keep from starving to death, they are full of shit. Body fat is nothing but stored food.

They are not starving at the moment. Take away their food stamps, and the ability for them to provide proper nutrition to themselves and their families is not possible. If it is possible to do so and also maintain a good lifestyle, they wouldn't be in the program in the first place.

That's why there are such problems in the current system, which has strong and good foundational purposes. If we believe that a food stamp program is to help a person and a family to maintain a proper diet, then having an open, unchecked program can be so counterproductive as to make the program essentially useless for people. In both cases, death and disease are approaching quickly.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-12-2009, 10:51 PM
I would want no part of either base as all one way or the other would be a nitemare which could be found in just about any other country that has ever existed. We used to be different, we were founded on American values of freedom and liberty not as a slave state for international bankers whom like the fact we fight with each other while they rob us blind.

wazu
04-12-2009, 10:53 PM
They are not starving at the moment. Take away their food stamps, and the ability for them to provide proper nutrition to themselves and their families is not possible. If it is possible to do so and also maintain a good lifestyle, they wouldn't be in the program in the first place.

Sure they would. It's free money. If they are truly in need and can't help it, you won't see them obese for long. They'll burn up fat stores, and soon enough they'll be back on the food stamp program. And a side-effect will be that they will be more healthy. Not that I care, as my only goal is to keep them from starving to death, but since it's clear that this matters to you, I just want to point it out.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 11:00 PM
I would want no part of either base as all one way or the other would be a nitemare which could be found in just about any other country that has ever existed. We used to be different, we were founded on American values of freedom and liberty not as a slave state for international bankers whom like the fact we fight with each other while they rob us blind.

We need more democracy and more government for the people and by the people like never before. A strong group of corporatists and financiers look to hijack our country and our people under the veil of freedom of markets, which they emphasize to be America's only purpose and foundation.

Jenson71
04-12-2009, 11:07 PM
Sure they would. It's free money. If they are truly in need and can't help it, you won't see them obese for long. They'll burn up fat stores, and soon enough they'll be back on the food stamp program. And a side-effect will be that they will be more healthy. Not that I care, as my only goal is to keep them from starving to death, but since it's clear that this matters to you, I just want to point it out.

I won't convince you anymore of my position, as I think I would mostly end up repeating myself. I think we both want to see less obese people getting taxpayer money to continue an unhealthy lifestyle. Where you and I differ is the means on getting there. You advocate something that doesn't help the person (take the program away until their stavation has reduced their weight level), and I'll keep advocating for something that does (create a better, healthier, and more helpful program) and I'm confident enough that a reasonable public would side with me.

wazu
04-12-2009, 11:16 PM
I won't convince you anymore of my position, as I think I would mostly end up repeating myself. I think we both want to see less obese people getting taxpayer money to continue an unhealthy lifestyle. Where you and I differ is the means on getting there. You advocate something that doesn't help the person (take the program away until their stavation has reduced their weight level), and I'll keep advocating for something that does (create a better, healthier, and more helpful program) and I'm confident enough that a reasonable public would side with me.

I'll go along with everything here except for the "reasonable public" remark. Just say "public". And just like you, I won't continue repeating myself. Just have to say this though and then I'll stop retorting with counter-punches:

In my program, it is literally impossible for a 400-pound person to walk up and get a stack of food stamps. In your program, this is possible. In fact, it sounds like you would advocate that a 400-pounder could legitimately need food stamps, but that if we put enough rules/regulation/strategery in place we could somehow get that 400-pounder to make adjustments in their lifestyle that would ultimately lead to health utopia.

Meanwhile in my food stamp line everybody actually is, at the very least, a somewhat normal weight for their height, without me having (or wanting) to manage any of the details of how they got there. I don't care, I just know they aren't fat and happy.

sportsman1
04-12-2009, 11:20 PM
Maybe it would help to start with developing a more defined picture of each place.

I think in the CSA, you would have a flat national tax, or maybe a national sales tax. In any case I think taxation would be quite low, given that social programs would be a shadow of what they are now. I think we could assume that corporate taxation would be lower than it is in the US today.

Gun rights would be protected in the CSA in a more unassailable way than they are in the US currently.

The CSA's borders would be closed and secure, presumably people illegally in the country would be deported... citizenship/work requirements would likely be high for non-citizens.

Presumably a social conservative agenda would be implemented as well on abortion/marriage/etc.

I have this dream every night. But then I wake up and realize it isn't real :banghead:

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 06:02 AM
I'll think about that....too many "isms" anyway. By calling it progressivism, do you mean to say that Capitalism/Conservatives are not or cannot be progressive?

I hate labels.

I only hate labels when they hide the truth. I guess you could say progressive depends on what one is progressing towards. So yeah! It's another misnowmer. Some of their ideas are old and tried before to poor result. Call them socialists then.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 06:06 AM
We are more purple than red and blue. Nobody wants to secede from the country, and more people are opening up to more liberal eonomic and social policies (regulation, national health care system) as opposed to more laissez-faire economic policies.

That's because of the conditioning of the people to accept socialist ( not liberal because they are illiberal) policies through fear mongering and ignorance created by our education system run by elitist intellectuals who hate capitalism or markets. Add the liberation theologists in there thought can get pretty jumbled up despite historical evidence as to what is more workable.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 06:07 AM
What do you consider to be wasteful safety net programs?

all of them

They're all unConstitutional anyway...at the Federal level.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 06:08 AM
I know this is all hypothetical, but is there no room for reality?

Yes. Let reality hit them in the face that they either produce or don't eat.
Too much sympathy begets apathy in people.
KISS

Sully
04-13-2009, 08:01 AM
These two "states" would be nearly identical, including taxes, gun ownership, infrastructure, etc.

KC native
04-13-2009, 09:38 AM
all of them

They're all unConstitutional anyway...at the Federal level.


Yes. Let reality hit them in the face that they either produce or don't eat.
Too much sympathy begets apathy in people.
KISS

:spock: So, what do you do with people who are injured at work and can no longer work? What do you do with mentally handicapped people whose caretakers have passed away? You really are dense sometimes.

Amnorix
04-13-2009, 10:10 AM
:spock: So, what do you do with people who are injured at work and can no longer work? What do you do with mentally handicapped people whose caretakers have passed away? You really are dense sometimes.

Best I can tell BEP would shoot 'em.

Pitt Gorilla
04-13-2009, 10:15 AM
That's because of the conditioning of the people to accept socialist ( not liberal because they are illiberal) policies through fear mongering and ignorance created by our education system run by elitist intellectuals who hate capitalism or markets. Add the liberation theologists in there thought can get pretty jumbled up despite historical evidence as to what is more workable.http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/its-a-conspiracy.jpg

Baby Lee
04-13-2009, 01:38 PM
:spock: So, what do you do with people who are injured at work and can no longer work?
The government doesn't do anything for these people, except run the Worker's Compensation Commission at the state level, and they're adamant about that, to the point of requiring Medicare set aside funds be made part of any settlement involving long term inability to work or medical needs [ie, so the W/C insurance pays for it, not the govt].

patteeu
04-13-2009, 01:52 PM
This has already been done. The LSA would build a wall on the border in order to prevent it's more productive people from fleeing. Over time, the LSA would crumble under the weight of the screwed up incentives created by their government. Eventually the wall would be torn down and the CSA would feel victorious. Meanwhile, an insidious evil would have taken root in the CSA as more and more of it's citizens decided that it would be good for government to solve more and more of their problems. Eventually, large parts of the CSA will effectively become the LSA as the jensons of the CSA gain a newfound appreciation for socialism, never having clearly understood the lessons of the past. The cycle continues and, in the end, most of us die penniless.

http://worldofpictures.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/berlin-wall-construction-1961.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 04:00 PM
http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/its-a-conspiracy.jpg
So you got nuthin'...except a misunderstood word.

I guess you don't know the difference between a conspiracy and an agenda.
This is not a crime nor is it a secret...there's plenty of mainstream books about how a lot of this stuff is coming out of Harvard, Yale etc. And how the left has major influence in education. Look at that conference that was at Harvard recently. Plenty of them here too. Geesh!

gblowfish
04-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Liberals would consentrate, have no tax base, and every freeloader would flock there making their situation worse. Eventually their society would crumble and they would cry out for help. And as is normally the case conservatives, who are known to be far more willing to help than liberals, would bail them out again.

Maybe, but at least the libs would get a hummer every now and then....