West Coast Homelessness

Originally Posted by wake77

Dude, your solution is to (de)annex California, Oregon, and Washington from our society and you bash me for not offering solutions? CA has like the fourth largest GDP in the entire world. You're a joke.

You are correct, however once they have to field a standing army and they annex Mexico like the California governors have said, more than once in public speaking, they would no longer be that large of an economy.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You are correct, however once they have to field a standing army and they annex Mexico like the California governors have said, more than once in public speaking, they would no longer be that large of an economy.

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

How dare you bring facts into an argument? We'll just replace CA with Greenland. I think they'll sell it for a gajillion dollars.

Originally Posted by wake77

How dare you bring facts into an argument? We'll just replace CA with Greenland. I think they'll sell it for a gajillion dollars.

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Isn't it supposed to be a giveaway to international mineral extraction companies under the guise of national security?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Isn't it supposed to be a giveaway to international mineral extraction companies under the guise of national security?

Why is everything a give away to you democrats when it comes to business and security?

Right now we have to go to china for all these rare earth minerals. We through our environazi regulations can not mine for new materials here. So, how do we get out from under a communist country holding our ability to make car batteries and electronics?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Why is everything a give away to you democrats when it comes to business and security?



Right now we have to go to china for all these rare earth minerals. We through our environazi regulations can not mine for new materials here. So, how do we get out from under a communist country holding our ability to make car batteries and electronics?

If mined “here” (US territories and for sake of argument let’s include Greenland) is there a requirement that the extracted minerals stay here?

If not then all you are doing is using my tax dollars to prop up someone else’s industry.

Also why wouldn’t US environmental laws apply if Greenland were made a territory? I hadn’t heard that argument but can’t see why it would be true.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Does it even matter? What if another country proposed to Trump, "We want to buy Alaska or Hawaii"? Damn dude, has it ever occurred to you to look at things objectively?

Originally Posted by wake77

Does it even matter? What if another country proposed to Trump, "We want to buy Alaska or Hawaii"? Damn dude, has it ever occurred to you to look at things objectively?

I am pretty sure I am in the objective camp. You guys saw that Trump asked about it and he is automatically a baffoon. I on the other had wanted to find out why it was even a topic.

Of the two positions, it is pretty clear that mine is the objective position.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

How is it that California is spending on military?

You do realize those "facts" you appear to be crowing is the defense spending that accounts for the GDP of a state. Not what the state is paying to provide a military.

My comment stands. Let the pacific coast have to form a standing army. Granted, the federal money from taxes would have to stay in state, but they would lose the federal reserve, all federal spending in the state. They do have the ports, but much of that product is meant to be a pass through to the rest of the country as well. It would not be all nice and tight for the west coast if they were not part of the US like they would like to think.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

How is it that California is spending on military?

You do realize those "facts" you appear to be crowing is the defense spending that accounts for the GDP of a state. Not what the state is paying to provide a military.

My comment stands. Let the pacific coast have to form a standing army. Granted, the federal money from taxes would have to stay in state, but they would lose the federal reserve, all federal spending in the state. They do have the ports, but much of that product is meant to be a pass through to the rest of the country as well. It would not be all nice and tight for the west coast if they were not part of the US like they would like to think.

On avg across all states, we spend 2.3% of GDP on the military.

In California, the state with the second biggest military spend, that spend represents only 2.1% of California's GDP. So California is net loser by 0.2% if just looking at the averages. And again, has the second highest spend. But that's not the whole story either because it doesn't account for the disproportionate percentage of the federal budget which is borne by California's taxes.

By all measures, California pays more federal tax than it receives in federal spending (including the military spending).

It's definitely an interesting question of who would suffer more as a result of a Cal-exit, California or the rest of the country. But there's certainly no clear conclusion that can be drawn one way or another. You seem to suggest that California might be "weak" as a result of failure to field a standing army. Is that in relation to its physical neighbors, or to the rest of the world? I mean with respect to its neighbors, it would sure seem like Mexico would be easier to invade and hold than CA. As to the world, the remaining USA and CA are probably both weaker and China is likely the big winner (thinking of projection of naval power in the pacific)? Dunno.