What's ahead: The tale of two states

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Thread Killer
Well, tomorrow we'll have some idea who won... hopefully. Either way, what will come next can be seen in the outcomes to date of two states: California and Texas.

These are states that have had more than a decade of one-party rule, Democrat and Republican respectively. Each has adopted a good portion of their respective party's positions and enacted them into law and hence shaped the way their state has gone.

In California, taxes were aggressively raised, particularly on "The Rich." Obamacare and state run healthcare got a massive push. A $15-an-hour minimum wage is in place. The state declared it was a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. The state has regulated businesses as strictly as possible, adding more regulations nearly daily. The state is largely closed shop union where they exist. It has taken the most radial Leftist positions on abortion, LGBTPDQRSTU issues, and has largely adopted the New Green Deal trying to eliminate oil and gas while pushing solar and wind. New gasoline car sales will be banned starting in 2035. Environmental laws are strict and numerous. It is everything the Biden campaign and Democrats want enacted.

Texas by comparison has no state income tax, and overall taxes are low. Business regulations have been reduced. Texas refused to expand Medicare / Medicaid under Obamacare, is a right-to-work state, and has not increased their minimum wage. It continues to be anti-illegal immigration, and has no state imposed abortion or LGBTPDQRSTUV agenda. It has also backed off expanding solar and wind power and continues to be a major oil and gas producer. It has taken a mild position on environmental laws and regulations.

California today has out-of-control wildfires that burn down whole towns annually. There are rolling brown outs and black outs, and the state has difficulty keeping the lights on. The cost of living is one of the highest in the nation. Businesses are fleeing the state as is the Middle Class. It has the largest population of homeless and people on welfare of any state. The infrastructure is crumbling. Leftist projects like high-speed rail have turned into multi-billion dollar boondoggles as they got so expensive the state could no longer afford to build them.

Texas is a state growing in economic wealth and opportunity. Their oil and gas industry is now a net exporter. People from states like California and New York are moving there in droves. Of course, there are gaps in environmental protections and the poorest segments of the population are not coddled by government like California does, but they aren't in desperate poverty either. Neither is the state suffering from a out-of-sight high cost of living imposed mainly by government from regulation and taxes.

Which state would you prefer to live in? Which do you think has a more vibrant and solid future? Who you vote for today could very well impact which future America has as a whole--California's or Texas'.
 
If there ever was any kind of mass secession, where the blue states ran themselves as a separate country from the red states - the blue states would thrive economically, educationally, with regard to healthcare, and in basically every other area. They'd have to help the red state gov't.
 
BartenderElite said:
If there ever was any kind of mass secession, where the blue states ran themselves as a separate country from the red states - the blue states would thrive economically, educationally, with regard to healthcare, and in basically every other area. They'd have to help the red state gov't.
Click to expand...

Not really... The blue states don't manufacture much of anything, grow much of anything, etc. Their cash comes primarily from interacting outside their own borders on paper, if you will.

For example, the computer chips necessary for silicon valley to thrive come (in the US) from Arizona and Texas primarily. Can't do computer stuff if you don't have computers and those aren't made in California...

Or, California has become dependent on imported electricity from Nevada, Arizona, and Utah in particular. Without that input California is going to be in the dark without electricity much of the time...

That's two examples of many.
 
My brother who lives in San Antonio says that the state is rapidly turning blue and that the government is getting worse fast......all might be soon lost.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not really... The blue states don't manufacture much of anything, grow much of anything, etc. Their cash comes primarily from interacting outside their own borders on paper, if you will.

For example, the computer chips necessary for silicon valley to thrive come (in the US) from Arizona and Texas primarily. Can't do computer stuff if you don't have computers and those aren't made in California...

Or, California has become dependent on imported electricity from Nevada, Arizona, and Utah in particular. Without that input California is going to be in the dark without electricity much of the time...

That's two examples of many.
Click to expand...

So, the red states would pick up their marbles & go home? Trade wouldn't exist?

The financial centers & even better education are in the blues. The U.S. isn't a manufacturing economy, regardless. The blues would fare much better if there was a split.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, the red states would pick up their marbles & go home? Trade wouldn't exist?

The financial centers & even better education are in the blues. The U.S. isn't a manufacturing economy, regardless. The blues would fare much better if there was a split.
Click to expand...

Oh, trade would exist, but it would exist as it does between nations. The red states would charge higher prices for their goods and the blues would have absurdly high costs of living with a big chunk of their populations having relatively poor quality of life.
The US split like that would likely see the red states up manufacturing simply because they would no longer be under the thumb of blue style government. Take California as an example. Manufacturing left that state almost entirely. It moved elsewhere. The corporate HQ might still be there but the means is gone. In this scenario, the HQ likely leaves too to avoid high taxes. Doesn't mean those manufacturers don't still sell their products there, it means that they don't make them there.

The previous examples I gave hold too. If California has to import electricity, it will cost more than if they were generating it internally.

Arizona, Nevada, and Utah would also benefit greatly by gaining control of federal land in their states. Nevada is over 90% federally owned. That ends, most of that land would become privately owned and put to better use than it is now. The state would gain a huge tax revenue bonus from that over what the feds hand them.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, the red states would pick up their marbles & go home? Trade wouldn't exist?

The financial centers & even better education are in the blues. The U.S. isn't a manufacturing economy, regardless. The blues would fare much better if there was a split.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the logic behind Blue Exit? BLEXIT? Like Brexit but with more warfare?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, tomorrow we'll have some idea who won... hopefully. Either way, what will come next can be seen in the outcomes to date of two states: California and Texas.

These are states that have had more than a decade of one-party rule, Democrat and Republican respectively. Each has adopted a good portion of their respective party's positions and enacted them into law and hence shaped the way their state has gone.

In California, taxes were aggressively raised, particularly on "The Rich." Obamacare and state run healthcare got a massive push. A $15-an-hour minimum wage is in place. The state declared it was a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. The state has regulated businesses as strictly as possible, adding more regulations nearly daily. The state is largely closed shop union where they exist. It has taken the most radial Leftist positions on abortion, LGBTPDQRSTU issues, and has largely adopted the New Green Deal trying to eliminate oil and gas while pushing solar and wind. New gasoline car sales will be banned starting in 2035. Environmental laws are strict and numerous. It is everything the Biden campaign and Democrats want enacted.

Texas by comparison has no state income tax, and overall taxes are low. Business regulations have been reduced. Texas refused to expand Medicare / Medicaid under Obamacare, is a right-to-work state, and has not increased their minimum wage. It continues to be anti-illegal immigration, and has no state imposed abortion or LGBTPDQRSTUV agenda. It has also backed off expanding solar and wind power and continues to be a major oil and gas producer. It has taken a mild position on environmental laws and regulations.

California today has out-of-control wildfires that burn down whole towns annually. There are rolling brown outs and black outs, and the state has difficulty keeping the lights on. The cost of living is one of the highest in the nation. Businesses are fleeing the state as is the Middle Class. It has the largest population of homeless and people on welfare of any state. The infrastructure is crumbling. Leftist projects like high-speed rail have turned into multi-billion dollar boondoggles as they got so expensive the state could no longer afford to build them.

Texas is a state growing in economic wealth and opportunity. Their oil and gas industry is now a net exporter. People from states like California and New York are moving there in droves. Of course, there are gaps in environmental protections and the poorest segments of the population are not coddled by government like California does, but they aren't in desperate poverty either. Neither is the state suffering from a out-of-sight high cost of living imposed mainly by government from regulation and taxes.

Which state would you prefer to live in? Which do you think has a more vibrant and solid future? Who you vote for today could very well impact which future America has as a whole--California's or Texas'.
Click to expand...

Neither of the above, but if I had forecast which State will have a greater influence on the future, positive influence, I’d go with California, the West Coast will always be a major attraction to many

And your presentation of the question is framed, you are asking would you want to live in State A which resembles Albania, or, State B, which looks like Shangri-La. Texas ain’t all that, most of it is flat, dry, hot, strip malls, chain stores, boulevards, and accented by mediocrity
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, trade would exist, but it would exist as it does between nations. The red states would charge higher prices for their goods and the blues would have absurdly high costs of living with a big chunk of their populations having relatively poor quality of life.
The US split like that would likely see the red states up manufacturing simply because they would no longer be under the thumb of blue style government. Take California as an example. Manufacturing left that state almost entirely. It moved elsewhere. The corporate HQ might still be there but the means is gone. In this scenario, the HQ likely leaves too to avoid high taxes. Doesn't mean those manufacturers don't still sell their products there, it means that they don't make them there.

The previous examples I gave hold too. If California has to import electricity, it will cost more than if they were generating it internally.

Arizona, Nevada, and Utah would also benefit greatly by gaining control of federal land in their states. Nevada is over 90% federally owned. That ends, most of that land would become privately owned and put to better use than it is now. The state would gain a huge tax revenue bonus from that over what the feds hand them.
Click to expand...

Arizona and Nevada are blue states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top