MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Curious about California if it were to s...

Curious about California if it were to secede

posted 6 years ago by Rorikon (17889)
21 replies | jump to latest

Economy of California is the largest in the United States, boasting a $2.746 trillion-ish GPD. It ranks 5th in the worlds largest economy. Some say it can manage itself without the rest of the US. Can it really?

Because of those horrendous fire outbreaks across Cali, it needed President Tump to sign this so-called Major Disaster Declaration. A Major Disaster Declaration provides funds to affected communities for a wide range of support. This includes crisis counseling, housing and unemployment assistance and legal services. This belongs to the federal fund.

If California were to secede, it would get none of that, no? I'm curious how it could survive or handle the situation in this case. Even the rich like the Kardashians were able to hire 'private' firefighters.

[–] FishGottoSwim (473) 6 years ago

I'm not sure that the very real California secession talk means seceding from the USA.

I think it means that there are parts of California that want to break off & form another state - so secede from California.

Some people have already picked out a new name for this potential North California state: Jefferson.

The only benefit I could see of Cali splitting up is that they'd have more representation in the Senate.

[–] Rorikon (17889) 6 years ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/calexit-plan-to-divorce-california-from-us-is-getting-a-second-chance.html

There were those that you mention about breaking up the state and also ones wanting to secede. Although none of them ever got to a vote, it has been brought up numerous times throughout the years. More than 220 proposals has been made to divide it into multiple states since its admission to the United States in 1850, including at least 27 significant proposals in the first 150 years of statehood. One-third of California residents in a 2016–2017 poll supported peacefully seceding from the United States, up from 20% in 2014. This fell to 18% in 2018.

[–] Keelai (34880) 6 years ago

Don't forget that Californians pay more in Federal dollars each year than they get back. I don't believe all those red states which receive much more in Federal dollars than they contribute would want to lose California's Federal taxes.

[–] Rorikon (17889) 6 years ago

Well, given how some Trump voters go, they couldn't care if it affected them as long as it isn't a democrat. Remember the tariffs? It's affected the States that produced the soy beans which are mostly Trump country farmers.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Dude, is this really even a question? Of course California could manage financially if the state seceded. Think about it. There are only five COUNTRIES with a higher GDP. California's GDP is roughly equivalent to the UK, and the UK manages just fine.

So what that they depend on a federal disaster relief fund? That's because every state does, it's called 'accounting'. They don't budget their own fund for emergencies because they expect the federal government to tap the federal fund in such instances.

So consider for a minute how much more tax revenue California's government would have at their disposal if that substantial portion of our checks didn't go to the IRS every year. The state government would need to tax us more to handle issues like defense that we rely nominally on the federal government to pay for. But part of that would be for any disaster relief fund and there really shouldn't be any doubt Californians would be able to afford it without the IRS involved in our lives anymore.

Regardless, it'll never happen. The last activist group I'm familiar with trying this in California turned out to be a fake front for a Russian provocateur who was trying to ignite civil chaos. After he was exposed he moved back to Russia and hasn't been back.

[–] TimMC (9143) 6 years ago

If CA changes in governing style/direction yes they could manage but NOT in their current form. The money is there, no one is denying that.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Yeah because like I just said, we pay too much federal taxes every year in its current form. Take that out, and we could fund our own Medicare for all like Massachusetts instead of forking tax revenue over to red states and their trailer park welfare queens that can't support themselves.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

The ballot initiative to divide California into 3 states failed. The Senate seat discrepency between California (~ 40 million people, 2 senators) and say Wyoming (~ 570,000 people, 2 senators) is still ridiculous.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Agreed. The unequal representation in the Senate is clearly inequitable and undemocratic. Allowing sparsely populated states equal representation to the most populated states in the more important congressional body was a compromise.

But it's simply indefensible on democratic and empirical grounds and really needs to be done away with.

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 6 years ago

That's the point of two houses. The upper house is not based on population while the lower house is.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Regardless, it's still not in any way defensible on democratic or empirical grounds why the least populated states have the greatest representation in the more important body of congress.

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 6 years ago

The reason is really pretty simple. The founders believed (rightly so), that a more populous state would be able to dictate what happens in a less populous state. In the system you describe, the lowly peons living in Wyoming would have basically no representation compared to the mighty behemoth that is California. That, my friend, is "not in any way defensible on democratic or empirical grounds." On the other hand, maybe that is truly democratic. It's not defensible, though.
Fortunately, we live in a representative republic.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both are considered key Founding Fathers and both supported proportional representation. Like I was saying it was a concession to the less populated states to join the Union.

That doesn't make it any less inequitable and un-representative. Same goes with the electoral college. An equitable representative democracy means one person, one vote. Not over-representing some voters and under-representing others based on geography.

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 6 years ago

We HAVE proportional representation. We don't have ONLY proportional representation. To do so would be akin to a state with 5 million wolves and a state with 500k lambs voting on what to have for dinner. The state with the wolves would always win and the lambs' voices would never be heard. The only way to balance that is to ALSO allow each state to have EQUAL representation. Now, you get some of both. The senate is called the "upper chamber," but doesn't necessarily have more power or prestige (since the 17th amendment changed the election of senators to a direct election of the people).

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

The Senate absolutely does have more power and prestige.

It's the Senate that act as gatekeepers to executive appointments and judicial nominations, most importantly SCOTUS. That's an entire co-equal branch of government where it's the Senate, not the House, that gets to decide who will and won't sit on the federal bench.

That's power.

And greater power means greater prestige.

You're not getting that two senators representing 40 million people in California can in no way be called "equal representation" to two senators representing 570,000 in Wyoming. An individual in Wyoming is vastly over-represented in the Senate compared to a Californian. Like I said, it's equal representation in terms of geographical demographics, but inequitable and indefensible in terms of democratic representation.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 6 years ago

Research California's economy and how it compares to other countries in the world. Trust me--they would do just fine. All the red states that hate California, ironically, would be the ones who would be hurting...BADLY...if California were to secede. This is why Trump and his idiotic followers are so mind-numbingly stupid for all their bashing of California--our country would be SCREWED without them--especially all those Trump-loving red states that California helps foot the bill for.

Bottom line: California doesn't need us but the rest of the states sure as HELL need California whether they realize/like it or not.

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

Not gonna happen ever.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Unless they damn up Yosemiti, it won't happen. Most of their agricultural water comes from Lake Meade (Nevada-U.S.) and they NEED a viable water source. And, as you noted, Federal Assistance is something they could never do without.

[–] Keelai (34880) 6 years ago

Red states receive the most federal assistance from the blue states.

Interesting article: Red States are Welfare Queens:
https://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG

[–] TimMC (9143) 6 years ago

California is a cash cow and the entire economic world knows it. ALSO California is run by rabidly moronic monkeys and the entire economic worlds knows it. Very simple, California would flounder without a larger entity(US Fed Gov) to protect it. So if CA secedes it would HAVE TO HAVE a big country back it, like Russia or China. That is the exact reason that the US Fed Gov would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER in a million years let it happen. Case closed.