Skip to main content

View Diary: What about those "nullifer" states? Simply nullify them! (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandra Lynch

    Divorce would be good. However, cost of living would go up on the coasts since everything would need to be purchased from the red states. Well worth it.

    •  Uh, no. (16+ / 0-)

      Blue states that, through their federal taxes, now subsidize red states would save far more billions than they would have to spend in trade. Indeed, blue states continue to export a lot to red states, so one shouldn't assume "everything" would flow in the other direction. Far from it.

      •  Um the study youre citing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi

        Is flat out bullshit. A lot of "studies" cited among kossacks lately are. and of course anyone pointing out the flaws is hsouted down.

        Cut out subsidies and california dries up and blows away. The federal government invested MASSIVELY in california to make it what it is in fact (it was a good investment).

        Your thinking is simply addled.

        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

        by cdreid on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:21:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lots of addled thinking, then (9+ / 0-)

          It's true California obtains large ag subsidies -- er, rather, agribusiness obtains it - but that is also true in rural agricultural red states. California could be its own sovereign nation, if it had to be. But it'll stay in the USA, because misguided as its Republicans have been, not even counting the Governator, it's not on the whole crazy. I'd much rather take my chances in a blue state, because, as Jonathan Cohn has noted, who would want to live in a red-state hell-hole if they could choose otherwise? To wit:

          By nearly every measure, people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states. It’s impossible to prove that this is the direct result of government spending. But the correlation is hard to dismiss. The four states with the highest poverty rates are all red: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. (The fifth is New Mexico, which has turned blue.) And the five states with the lowest poverty rates are all blue: New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Minnesota, and Hawaii. The numbers on infant mortality, life expectancy, teen pregnancy, and obesity break down in similar ways. A recent study by researchers at the American Institute for Physics evaluated how well-prepared high schoolers were for careers in math and science. Massachusetts was best, followed closely by Minnesota and New Jersey. Mississippi was worst, along with Louisiana and West Virginia. In fact, it is difficult to find any indicator of well-being in which red states consistently do better than blue states.
          Reality is clearly this: Wealth transfers, on average, flow away from high-income and underrepresented states and toward low-income and overrepresented states. Urban areas tend to be the engines of most wealth creation in this country, now. Meanwhile, red states retain way more legislative power in proportion to their population. Thus, letting those on-the-dole nullfiers go fish will ease the tax burden on hard-working blue states. It's just true, except in the wingnut alternate reality.
        •  Nope, not bullshit (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb, JerryNA, RichM, radmul, scrape, ranton, 417els

          Trollery, plain and simple.

          Blue states, on average, get back eighty cents on every federal tax dollar collected/dispersed.

          Red states, esp in the south, 1.10.

          Fact. Do your homework.

          The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

          by ozsea1 on Fri May 03, 2013 at 06:59:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On the other hand (0+ / 0-)

            If you follow the flow of money in private hands, spending in the res states tends to end up in blue state hands, since the 1% tend to live there for obvious reasons

            We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

            by bmcphail on Fri May 03, 2013 at 04:04:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Could you explain (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, RichM, scrape

          specifically what's wrong with those studies? While I reluctantly agree with this:

          A lot of "studies" cited among kossacks lately are [bullshit]. . .
          I've never seen any holes poked in the interstate wealth-transfer figures (though they're often cited without adequate context, such as understanding that relative state wealth/poverty accounts for most of the variation).

          Hope you fall on your burger and fries.

          by cardinal on Fri May 03, 2013 at 07:09:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Everything? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi, JerryNA, Chitownliberal7

      Why would prices for goods from those places go up?

      On the other hand, if Florida left, we could buy foreign cane sugar, and the price of real sugar for your breakfast coffee would fall by 3/4.

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:10:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  California is the 9th largest (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      argomd, myboo, RUNDOWN

      economy in the world, on its own.

      My little state used to produce the most grade A milk in the nation [Maryland] and could again. the vast middle is not as arable as the eastern states where per acre yield can be 10 to one compared to "the grain belt". We could tool up for it again because we have set aside enough land.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site