goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2015, 12:22:38 PM
-
What gives? Surely Obama has done SOMETHING sinister in the last few days. Keep me up to date guys
-
obama caused marcus foster to be black and therefore a team cancer hurting the hard working salt of the earth bruces of america
-
Immigration: Federal Judge grants injunction blocking implementation of Obama's Future Democrats of America program. Senate Democrats continue to filibuster GOP's efforts to pass Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill because it excludes funding for implementing the aforementioned FDA program. Rather than face the MSM backlash for "shutting down" the DHS, which would apparently cause a few secretaries to be furloughed since 96% of DHS is already deemed essential, GOP appears to be on the verge of caving and inluding funding for the FDA program (which, as a I mentioned, is currently enjoined from taking effect, but the Senate GOP does not seem to be aware of this).
Foreign Policy: Obama, fresh off Ending the War in Iraq (TM), wants authority to send troops back to Iraq to fight the bad guys that have proliferated there since he withdrew all troops from Iraq. And we're asking the Iraqis to interrogate captured ISIS terrorists because, you know, we don't "torture" anymore. State Dept. Spokesdimwit Harf opines that "we cannot kill our way to defeating ISIS" and says the problem can only be solved with higher employment. Meanwhile long-term unemployment in the US reaches an all-time high.
The Pubtards: 45 days after assuming control of Congress, they still haven't done jack crap on Obamacare, the Budget, Tax Reform, or Immigration Reform. But they'll like totally do something if we vote for them again in 2016.
Brownback: Busy destroying Kansas. Newspapers decry his school funding "cuts" even though they'll still get almost $200 million more than last year. Gove County is worried they might have to consolidate one of their three school districts.
Obamcare: Nearly 12 million people bought insurance through the exchanges for 2015. The vast majority of them received a hefty taxpayer subsidy. This is touted as a "success," even though we could probably attract more than 12 million people to sign up for all kinds of other free crap. Meanwhile, the policies themselves are mostly crap, with high deductibles and small networks, and the cost of health insurance for everyone else who were already playing by the rules continues to rise.
Global Warming: It's winter and it's freezing.
That's about it off the top of my head. Anything else you'd like an update on?
-
I bet you're a fun neighbor KSU.
-
KS:
1. heard yesterday that KS is the 7th most 'Pub state in the country. Can you imagine 1-6? Woof
2. also heard yesterday that sin taxes on cig's will go from something like $0.79 per pack to $2.29 per pack and liquor will go from 8% to 12% if a currently proposed bill gets passed. Just the conservatives raising taxes again. Nothing to see here. The plan is working.
-
What gives? Surely Obama has done SOMETHING sinister in the last few days. Keep me up to date guys
Bush's fault
-
KS:
1. heard yesterday that KS is the 7th most 'Pub state in the country. Can you imagine 1-6? Woof
2. also heard yesterday that sin taxes on cig's will go from something like $0.79 per pack to $2.29 per pack and liquor will go from 8% to 12% if a currently proposed bill gets passed. Just the conservatives raising taxes again. Nothing to see here. The plan is working.
LOL, you are like a little kid. Better be good, or Santa will put coal in your stocking.
-
KS:
1. heard yesterday that KS is the 7th most 'Pub state in the country. Can you imagine 1-6? Woof
2. also heard yesterday that sin taxes on cig's will go from something like $0.79 per pack to $2.29 per pack and liquor will go from 8% to 12% if a currently proposed bill gets passed. Just the conservatives raising taxes again. Nothing to see here. The plan is working.
You're a little behind in your news. The tobacco/alcohol tax is going nowhere. http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article10616198.html (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article10616198.html)
As for Kansas being the 7th most Pubtarded in the country, did you know that Kansas has the 5th most local governments per capita of all the states? That's a lot of liberal bureaucracy. :Woohoo:
-
I blame the radio for my timeliness. Also, for possibly getting me coal from FSD.
-
Obama raises the federal cigarette tax 60%+ in 2009. Libtards: Ho hum, no biggie.
Bill proposed in Kansas Legislature to raise cigarette taxes. Libtards: *outrage* :curse: This is rough ridin' everyone.
-
KS:
1. heard yesterday that KS is the 7th most 'Pub state in the country. Can you imagine 1-6? Woof
2. also heard yesterday that sin taxes on cig's will go from something like $0.79 per pack to $2.29 per pack and liquor will go from 8% to 12% if a currently proposed bill gets passed. Just the conservatives raising taxes again. Nothing to see here. The plan is working.
New York cigarette tax is $4.35 per pack.
-
Obama raises the federal cigarette tax 60%+ in 2009. Libtards: Ho hum, no biggie.
Bill proposed in Kansas Legislature to raise cigarette taxes. Libtards: *outrage* :curse: This is rough ridin' everyone.
I could give a crap about it other than the other massive cuts made and now the scramble to tax other things, possibly adjust property taxes, the shelving of KDOT work, and the ed cuts.
I would be fine if cigs were $10/pack if in a vacuum.
-
Ksuw thinks local KS government is liberal?
-
Ksuw thinks local KS government is liberal?
Point of ref.
There are 6 states that have, on avg, more conservative leanings than KS.
-
Ksuw thinks local KS government is liberal?
Just the local governments. Local control is a liberal concept. The conservative way is to have everything come top down from Topeka. Not from Washington, though.
-
Ksuw thinks local KS government is liberal?
Just the local governments. Local control is a liberal concept. The conservative way is to have everything come top down from Topeka. Not from Washington, though.
I was simply pointing out that Kansas has, relatively speaking, a lot more seperate government units per capita than most other states. They're probably mostly staffed by conservative Ron Swanson types, but still, libtards should appreciate the inefficiency.
-
So kansas neocons are hypocritical?
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
I think that is a terrible idea.
-
It's hard to tell whether being a libtard is debilitatingly frustrating or more of an ignorant bliss.
Probably depends on the libtard, although the latter are genuinely insufferable.
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
Hot damn, finally something I agree with you on. :cheers: We could divide it into 10 counties and 20 school districts and still come out ahead.
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
Hot damn, finally something I agree with you on. :cheers: We could divide it into 10 counties and 20 school districts and still come out ahead.
What does this do to relieve the overbearing bureaucracy weighing down on the typical Kansan?
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
Hot damn, finally something I agree with you on. :cheers: We could divide it into 10 counties and 20 school districts and still come out ahead.
What does this do to relieve the overbearing bureaucracy weighing down on the typical Kansan?
Saves money?
-
I think we just have a lot of land that is sparsely populated, giving us more counties per capita than most other states.
I think the western half of the state could be divided into four counties and possibly 16 school districts.
Hot damn, finally something I agree with you on. :cheers: We could divide it into 10 counties and 20 school districts and still come out ahead.
What does this do to relieve the overbearing bureaucracy weighing down on the typical Kansan?
Saves money?
How much?
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
-
Anything west of salina can just be its own country
-
An Iranian dipomat hollered at Kerry. heard he wizzed himself and threatened to throw a metal at him.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
-
states are also too small
-
states are also too small
No.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
Tx, OK, KS, NE, SD, and ND should form our own nation - the Republic of Republicans. Charge like hell for the food and oil we produce. Have a flyover tax - Obama will make us rich with his CA campaigning.
-
Tx, OK, KS, NE, SD, and ND should form our own nation - the Republic of Republicans. Charge like hell for the food and oil we produce. Have a flyover tax - Obama will make us rich with his CA campaigning.
Where would the capital be?
-
salina - centrally located to represent america
-
king detobias, ruler of the 'pubs
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
Did you just say "hundreds of miles away"? We're talking about consolidating counties - not states.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
Did you just say "hundreds of miles away"? We're talking about consolidating counties - not states.
I don't think you know just how big Kansas is. He was talking about reducing the western half of the state to 16 school districts.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
Did you just say "hundreds of miles away"? We're talking about consolidating counties - not states.
I don't think you know just how big Kansas is. He was talking about reducing the western half of the state to 16 school districts.
Your statement is still geographically Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), unless those school districts would be narrow bands stretching from the southern border to the northern border - and that would be pretty silly.
The Western half of KS is almost exactly 200 x 200 miles. In a grid, that would equal 16 50x50 mile counties. If the schools are even somewhat centrally located in each block, you're looking at being maybe 30 miles away from your school, tops.
But I'm no expert on geography - maybe Rusty can weigh in.
-
I was waiting for a geography zinger in that post, didn't disappoint :D
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
Did you just say "hundreds of miles away"? We're talking about consolidating counties - not states.
I don't think you know just how big Kansas is. He was talking about reducing the western half of the state to 16 school districts.
Your statement is still geographically Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), unless those school districts would be narrow bands stretching from the southern border to the northern border - and that would be pretty silly.
The Western half of KS is almost exactly 200 x 200 miles. In a grid, that would equal 16 50x50 mile counties.
But I'm no expert on geography - maybe Rusty can weigh in.
It's just too bad the population isn't evenly distributed over those 50x50 squares. Considering 3 of the schools would have to be in Garden City, Dodge City, and Liberal, some of the districts would have to cover a much larger area than others.
-
There is a lot more room for consolidation in eastern Kansas, really. There are tons of small towns less than 10 miles away from each other that all have their own schools. Western Kansas towns are a lot more isolated, with some exceptions.
-
Wow, did you guys realize that the entire western half of Kansas has only 313k people, or about 11% of the entire population of Kansas? The same western half of Kansas is divided into 46 counties, or 44% of all counties in Kansas. :Wha:
Nearly half of all counties (and county governments) for a tenth of the population. Seems pretty inefficient to me.
-
Just make everyone move to liberal or dodge or something and commute to their farms.
-
everything between dc and la should just be one state
-
I'd prefer smaller states.
-
me too
-
Wow, did you guys realize that the entire western half of Kansas has only 313k people, or about 11% of the entire population of Kansas? The same western half of Kansas is divided into 46 counties, or 44% of all counties in Kansas. :Wha:
Nearly half of all counties (and county governments) for a tenth of the population. Seems pretty inefficient to me.
It's actually more efficient that way. It would be inefficient to have a large county that serves tiny communities 50+ miles away from the county seat.
-
Do additional counties in western KS cost more money for the people who live in eastern KS? I don't understand why someone in JoCo would care how many counties there are west of Wichita. The only people paying for that extra government are the people who live there, right?
-
Do additional counties in western KS cost more money for the people who live in eastern KS? I don't understand why someone in JoCo would care how many counties there are west of Wichita. The only people paying for that extra government are the people who live there, right?
Yeah. They are big-government authoritarian types who think people who live in population centers should tell those in rural areas how to live, though, so it's not surprising.
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
That isn't really true.
-
I see zero need for States at all.
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
That isn't really true.
Interesting if true.
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
That isn't really true.
Interesting if true.
Agriculture accounts for about 37% of the state's total economy. Most of the agricultural production is in western KS. Only 11% of the population lives in western KS. Most of the state's oil and gas exploration is also in western KS . . .
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
That isn't really true.
Interesting if true.
Agriculture accounts for about 37% of the state's total economy. Most of the agricultural production is in western KS. Only 11% of the population lives in western KS. Most of the state's oil and gas exploration is also in western KS . . .
Yeah, but we are talking taxes and you just listed the two industries with the most tax subsidies and advantages in our country. Also, property tax and stuff.
-
Right now the west counties are trying like crazy to fund their schools with east county taxes. So, that is probably why.
That isn't really true.
Interesting if true.
Agriculture accounts for about 37% of the state's total economy. Most of the agricultural production is in western KS. Only 11% of the population lives in western KS. Most of the state's oil and gas exploration is also in western KS . . .
Yeah, but we are talking taxes and you just listed the two industries with the most tax subsidies and advantages in our country. Also, property tax and stuff.
Outside of the KC metro, eastern KS properties really aren't much different than western KS properties. The subsidies you mention are federal subsidies, not state. Farmers also pay extra taxes on fertilizer, and in the case of feedyards, water use. The part of the state that isn't pulling its weight in terms of taxes vs education spending is located south of Kansas City and east of Wichita.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
-
Given how slow change takes through govt, I feel like the 50 year redesign is a very bad idea
-
Given how slow change takes through govt, I feel like the 50 year redesign is a very bad idea
you more than likely wouldn't need to change them because after the first redraw you could draw boundaries in sparsely populated areas. I was thinking you may want to adjust if an area had unusually explosive growth.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
-
Eastern Kansas should be in Missouri. Western Kansas, everything in Comlorado east of the Rockies, and the Oklahoma/Texas panhandle should be a state.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
-
yes, kansas counties are way too small. they should have a 100k population minimum per
I think they are set up pretty logically. Everyone has easy access to their county seat. The locals get the services/ordinances they want. The idea that people are subjected to more beaurocracy because there are more county governments is laughable.
I think the idea of having less sheriffs, less school administration, and less state funding of county governments is a great idea.
It could be a quite a local/county tax savings for the people in those areas if they would just collaborate.
Not really. They would still have to fund all of those services and they'd have to either send their kids to a school hundreds of miles away or pay for a similar amount of administrators as they are already paying for.
Did you just say "hundreds of miles away"? We're talking about consolidating counties - not states.
I don't think you know just how big Kansas is. He was talking about reducing the western half of the state to 16 school districts.
Maybe 16 is too low, but I think one Superintendent with a decent sized staff to run a central office can handle a large population of students who are widely spread apart geographically. There's site managers (principals), and sufficient technology to handle such a task.
Think of the buying power the larger districts could achieve in terms of supply.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
-
Water disputes/energy exploration, etc would be a whole lot easier if the western states were bound by natural resources and industry. The population centers aren't that relevant. Most urban and rural areas would be better off without each other.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
portlandseattlesburg
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
-
3 people live in montana, who gives a eff
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
-
there should be like 10 states. then the states should have like current state sized counties. then that's it
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
That's always going to happen in a country as vast with such varying population density, regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
That's always going to happen in a country as vast with such varying population density, regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
It's possible to create states without the vastness and widely varying population density, though. That should be the goal.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
That's always going to happen in a country as vast with such varying population density, regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
It's possible to create states without the vastness and widely varying population density, though. That should be the goal.
Why?
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
That's always going to happen in a country as vast with such varying population density, regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
It's possible to create states without the vastness and widely varying population density, though. That should be the goal.
Why?
People get the laws/tax code they want.
-
states should be redrawn based upon current population centers and evenly distributed based on population. Redraw the lines every 50-100 years.
The western states should be redrawn based upon resource locations. The eastern states were drawn this way. The western states are just big rectangles for the most part.
I think even distribution based around population centers is better (and would basically take care of resource locations). Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia should be a single state. The NYC metro should be contained in a single state. The Chicago, KC, STL metros, etc.
Where do you put Montana?
With Denver's state. Or maybe Seattle. Don't know how it shakes out.
Nothing in Montana is remotely close to Denver or Seattle. That would cause problems.
What kind of problems?
The kind of problems K-S-U likes to bitch about. People in the cities have to help fund schools in isolated areas that have industries that prop up the state, etc.
That's always going to happen in a country as vast with such varying population density, regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
It's possible to create states without the vastness and widely varying population density, though. That should be the goal.
Why?
People get the laws/tax code they want.
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
Under my proposal they would be equally represented.
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
Under my proposal they would be equally represented.
Not really. They would have different needs that are completely unrelated, and one group would have a lot more votes than the other.
-
This is the dumbest thread I've read in a long time
-
Fsd, how big do you think States should be?
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
Under my proposal they would be equally represented.
Not really. They would have different needs that are completely unrelated, and one group would have a lot more votes than the other.
There are plenty of underrepresented groups in urban areas with completely different and unrelated needs, too.
-
And it would make many rural folks in places like California, New York and Texas LESS underrepresented because they would likely be in a less populated state with more people with needs similar to their own.
-
Sitting on the throne passing a brick. This can be a joyful experience. Anyone else feel the same? With emotions involved can Vulans crap? Does Obama the egotist turn around and admire his artwork and savor the smell? Maybe that's his problem of why he thinks he is right,
-
Fsd, how big do you think States should be?
Let's let the caliphate decide
-
1 state then! :cheers:
-
We should sell California to the Chinese and payoff the national debt. Maybe 1031 exchange some of the land for Baja mexico, so we still have good warm pacific coast. If not, split Alaska into two states so we don't have to change the flag.
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
Under my proposal they would be equally represented.
Not really. They would have different needs that are completely unrelated, and one group would have a lot more votes than the other.
There are plenty of underrepresented groups in urban areas with completely different and unrelated needs, too.
Like who? Do you think somebody living 400 miles away from a ranch should have equal say on the environmental policy the ranch has to follow as the people living in close proximity?
-
Why do the rural poor of Montana matter more than the urban poor of Chicago?
They matter the same. That is why it is better that the poor of Montana get to set their own policies. Otherwise, they have no say in anything.
Under my proposal they would be equally represented.
Not really. They would have different needs that are completely unrelated, and one group would have a lot more votes than the other.
There are plenty of underrepresented groups in urban areas with completely different and unrelated needs, too.
Like who?
gays immediately come to mind. Various immigrant groups, industries, and ages of people are often underrepresented in some form.
Do you think somebody living 400 miles away from a ranch should have equal say on the environmental policy the ranch has to follow as the people living in close proximity?
Yes, because environmental policy affects everyone.
However, new state lines would create larger blocs of people with similar interests. A great example of this is counties in New York that were proposing secession to Pennsylvania to get around the fracking ban. In my concept, they'd already be grouped with rural Pennsylvania and wouldn't be beholden to them whims of New York City.
So in your Montana example, it could have a negative affect on representation, but it would give them a larger pool of state resources to draw from. And it would increase the political power of rural folks in Colorado who had previously been dominated by Denver and Colorado Springs.
-
Environmental policy has a diminishing return the further away you are. If we would have divided the states based upon resource locations (river basins, oil, and natural gas), I think we would have much better environmental policy at the state level, fewer lawsuits over water, and much more unified goals overall.
-
We should sell California to the Chinese and payoff the national debt. Maybe 1031 exchange some of the land for Baja mexico, so we still have good warm pacific coast. If not, split Alaska into two states so we don't have to change the flag.
Add PR
-
We should sell California to the Chinese and payoff the national debt. Maybe 1031 exchange some of the land for Baja mexico, so we still have good warm pacific coast. If not, split Alaska into two states so we don't have to change the flag.
Add PR
Nobody wants them plus we need another place for gitmo 2.0 should the need arise.
-
I could easily get rid of Florida
-
I could easily get rid of Florida
It will be under water by 2025.
-
even more reason to unload it now