If the USA had to lose a state...

[Hamiltonya]

A key part of development would be economic growth.

Nope. That'd be human rights, live expectancy and quality of life.



Also, editing your posts to avoid moderator action is considered to be bad.

How does the south lack human rights or quality of life? Statistically, they do have the lower life expectancies but how does that relate to development?

[Hamiltonya]

If anyone is co-dependent on federal funds it would be California and their economy is still fucked.

That doesn't disprove the fact that all of the south barring Texas is completely dependent on federal funds, largely do to too low taxes.

That doesn't make sense. How would they be dependent on funds because their taxes are too low? Check the link. The Southern states receive the lowest amount from the federal government.

[Hamiltonya]

A key part of development would be economic growth.

Nope. That'd be human rights, live expectancy and quality of life.



Also, editing your posts to avoid moderator action is considered to be bad.

Really, economic growth isn't part of development? Bull crap.

[Hobit]

If anyone is co-dependent on federal funds it would be California and their economy is still fucked.

Ummm no. We account for 13% of the national GDP of the nation and and a GSP of $1.85 trillion. I wouldn't call that fucked. Yes it's hurting, but fucked, no.

Hey hey now, let's keep it civil. But seriously, the Old Northwest grow the most? Because of the recession, their economies have practically tanked, look at Detroit as proof, whole neighborhoods abandoned, buildings shells of their former selves.

http://politicalderby.com/2011/06/13/which-states-economy-grew-the-most-from-2009-2010/ Yeah, but the Old Northwest isn't one of the categories here. You have to do the math yourself.

And if you look at the map, the Great Lakes area grew 2.6%, while New England grew 3.4%, which invalidates your argument.

[The Black Forrest]

Why California?

Eh, maybe just Oregon. To many liberals.

Derp.

[Nuvalia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas#Economy

[Hamiltonya]

If anyone is co-dependent on federal funds it would be California and their economy is still fucked.

Ummm no. We account for 13% of the national GDP of the nation and and a GSP of $1.85 trillion. I wouldn't call that fucked. Yes it's hurting, but fucked, no.

http://politicalderby.com/2011/06/13/which-states-economy-grew-the-most-from-2009-2010/ Yeah, but the Old Northwest isn't one of the categories here. You have to do the math yourself.

And if you look at the map, the Great Lakes area grew 2.6%, while New England grew 3.4%, which invalidates your argument.

No, I clearly stated the old northwest isn't a category here. Minnesota and Wisconsin should be added and averaged with the "Great Lakes" states.

[Hobit]

Ummm no. We account for 13% of the national GDP of the nation and and a GSP of $1.85 trillion. I wouldn't call that fucked. Yes it's hurting, but fucked, no.



And if you look at the map, the Great Lakes area grew 2.6%, while New England grew 3.4%, which invalidates your argument.

No, I clearly stated the old northwest isn't a category here. Minnesota and Wisconsin should be added and averaged with the "Great Lakes" states.

Look again, Wisconsin is included. Plus with Minnesota it only goes up to 2.86%

[Hamiltonya]

No, I clearly stated the old northwest isn't a category here. Minnesota and Wisconsin should be added and averaged with the "Great Lakes" states.

Look again, Wisconsin is included. Plus with Minnesota it only goes up to 2.86%

You're right, I should have said Iowa. The point of the map though, is that the West has experienced very little growth compared with the rest of the country.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Look again, Wisconsin is included. Plus with Minnesota it only goes up to 2.86%

You're right, I should have said Iowa. The point of the map though, is that the West has experienced very little growth compared with the rest of the country.

Iowa is in the west. West of everywhere that matters, anyway.

[Baron lords]

I say Montana could be lost, I don't know what it does anyway

[Hobit]

Look again, Wisconsin is included. Plus with Minnesota it only goes up to 2.86%

You're right, I should have said Iowa. The point of the map though, is that the West has experienced very little growth compared with the rest of the country.

And...? Iowa would not have made a big enough difference to take over NE, and if California were to leave the Union, it would still be a blow to the US economy. If Washington or Oregon were to leave, there'd be blows to certain sectors of the economy, and Nevada, well Nevada is as you say, "Fucked up".

[Hamiltonya]

You're right, I should have said Iowa. The point of the map though, is that the West has experienced very little growth compared with the rest of the country.

Iowa is in the west. West of everywhere that matters, anyway.

Iowa is definitely in the East.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Iowa is in the west. West of everywhere that matters, anyway.

Iowa is definitely in the East.

It took me a two day drive west on I-80 to get there. That's west.

[Hamiltonya]

Iowa is definitely in the East.

It took me a two day drive west on I-80 to get there. That's west.

Sure it's West of the Atlantic but so is everything else.

[Hobit]

Iowa is in the west. West of everywhere that matters, anyway.

Iowa is definitely in the East.

But not the Old Northwest, which is the point of this sub-argument.

[Hamiltonya]

You're right, I should have said Iowa. The point of the map though, is that the West has experienced very little growth compared with the rest of the country.

And...? Iowa would not have made a big enough difference to take over NE, and if California were to leave the Union, it would still be a blow to the US economy. If Washington or Oregon were to leave, there'd be blows to certain sectors of the economy, and Nevada, well Nevada is as you say, "Fucked up".

That's the NE minus New England. No, California wouldn't be much of a blow since they're more of a burden than an asset.

[Hamiltonya]

Iowa is definitely in the East.

But not the Old Northwest, which is the point of this sub-argument.

Actualy, it is part of the old Northwest. That map does not show the Old Northwest, It shows the "Great Lake" states.

[Hobit]

And...? Iowa would not have made a big enough difference to take over NE, and if California were to leave the Union, it would still be a blow to the US economy. If Washington or Oregon were to leave, there'd be blows to certain sectors of the economy, and Nevada, well Nevada is as you say, "Fucked up".

That's the NE minus New England. No, California wouldn't be much of a blow since they're more of a burden than an asset.

NE = New England. 1.83 trillion dollars isn't an asset to the economy? Ok, we will take out 53 Fortune 500 companies and our movie industry and leave the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Northwest <--- Not Iowa

[Hamiltonya]

That's the NE minus New England. No, California wouldn't be much of a blow since they're more of a burden than an asset.

NE = New England. 1.83 trillion dollars isn't an asset to the economy? Ok, we will take out 53 Fortune 500 companies and our movie industry and leave the union.

New England was not the biggest sector on the map so I assumed you were talking about the biggest sector, the northeast. P.S. Wikipedia isn't a source.

[Hamiltonya]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8-1790.png
Even your crappy source proved you wrong.....

[Hamiltonya]

That's the NE minus New England. No, California wouldn't be much of a blow since they're more of a burden than an asset.

NE = New England. 1.83 trillion dollars isn't an asset to the economy? Ok, we will take out 53 Fortune 500 companies and our movie industry and leave the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Northwest <--- Not Iowa

How much you create doesn't matter when you still spend more..... California may provide a lot but they cost more to maintain...

[Stattr]

I'd go with one that...well....doesn't have many interests....

[Farnhamia]

NE = New England. 1.83 trillion dollars isn't an asset to the economy? Ok, we will take out 53 Fortune 500 companies and our movie industry and leave the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Northwest <--- Not Iowa

How much you create doesn't matter when you still spend more..... California may provide a lot but they cost more to maintain...

California gets back 81 cents on every tax dollar it sends to Washington, so, no, it doesn't cost more to "maintain." Not from the Federal perspective, anyway.

[Wiztopia]

How much you create doesn't matter when you still spend more..... California may provide a lot but they cost more to maintain...

California gets back 81 cents on every tax dollar it sends to Washington, so, no, it doesn't cost more to "maintain." Not from the Federal perspective, anyway.

Why would California send anything to Washington? Shouldn't they send it to Oregon first since its directly north of it?