Yankoslavia: the Future of the USA

Hate to say it, but it's true. And guess who's our Milosevic?

Ever since I read Ecotopia and The Nine Nations of North
America, I've had the rising feeling that the faster we
explode, the better.

This alleged "country" is actually a confederation of groups with
radically different interests, and I think the past half-century or
so has shown that there's simply no way to co-mingle these differing
interests.

Here's to the Republic of New England! And Ecotopia! And Mex-America!
And Dixie! Let them each go their separate ways.

Atlant

Most likely there would be no big country in N. America, but several (eight or nine most likely) Dominions like Canada or New England. John Quincy Adams would be New England's greatest Prime Minister, for example, rather than a sub-mediocre US President.

Actually I'd love total union w/ Canada. It would make the whole more liberal.

Vermont, NH, and Maine might join Canada, as might Cascadia, but the other liberal areas probably won't. The Megalopolis and the eastern Midwest are too American and have too much crime and California is the anathema of Canada.

Particularly since it often seems that Canada's unifying force is the need to exist independently from the American behemoth. Although the Quebecois seperatists are quieter now than they have been previously, if America split up - Canada might be more tempted to do so also. The Maritimes would join New England (and probably be much better off for it...), Quebec would be independent. It might make sense for Ontario to join whatever entity comprised New York and/or Michigan. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are I think more liberal/progressive than their Southern neighbors, so maybe they could make a go of it alone. It would make sense for Alberta to join the western states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.), BC would join Cascadia (maybe minus Southern California...), maybe Yukon and Nunavut also...

-SM, who would prefer the geographical status quo and the continued slouching towards increaed liberalism for both countries...

The Vancouver area is, but the rest isn't. Very generally speaking, the English-speaking provinces of Canada are aligned politically with the areas in the US they border. Look at the maps of the Nine Nations of North America - the Maritime provinces are with New England, southern Ontario is very northeastern, Manitoba/Saskatchewan are midwestern, Alberta is western, and BC is like a west coast state (liberal on the coast, conservative inland). All of those areas in Canada are more liberal than their US counterparts, though.

into a Western USA and an Eastern USA. I guess I resent the fact that Washington is draining money frome the west and not giving back. It would seem to me to be better if the West could use it's taxes for it's own needs.

I don't know about you Easterners. I guess you'll have to figure out how to live within your means.

State Ranking of Per Capita Spending, Per-Capita Tax
Burden and Return on the Federal Tax Dollar: Fiscal 2002

Ranking by Per Capita Ranking by Per Capita Ranking of Return
Rank Total Spending Tax Burden on Tax Dollar

1 Alaska 11,746 Connecticut 10,406 New Mexico 2.34
2 Virginia 10,220 Massachusetts 9,273 North Dakota 2.04
3 North Dakota 10,151 New Jersey 8,801 Alaska 1.91
4 New Mexico 9,422 New Hampshire 7,754 Mississippi 1.88
5 Maryland 9,076 New York 7,561 West Virginia 1.81
6 Hawaii 8,414 California 7,286 Montana 1.65
7 South Dakota 8,298 Washington 7,272 Alabama 1.64
8 Montana 7,668 Maryland 7,215 South Dakota 1.58
9 Alabama 7,643 Colorado 7,096 Hawaii 1.56
10 Missouri 7,465 Illinois 7,012 Arkansas 1.55

11 Mississippi 7,420 Wyoming 6,860 Oklahoma 1.52
12 West Virginia 7,415 Minnesota 6,799 Virginia 1.51
13 Massachusetts 7,387 Delaware 6,699 Kentucky 1.50
14 Wyoming 7,351 Virginia 6,657 Louisiana 1.49
15 Connecticut 7,336 Nevada 6,417 South Carolina 1.34
16 Maine 7,111 Rhode Island 6,279 Maine 1.34
17 Kentucky 7,056 Pennsylvania 6,204 Missouri 1.33
18 Rhode Island 7,014 Florida 6,177 Idaho 1.31
19 Oklahoma 6,971 Michigan 6,058 Tennessee 1.28
20 Pennsylvania 6,940 Alaska 6,025 Maryland 1.23

21 Arkansas 6,779 Wisconsin 5,840 Iowa 1.22
22 Tennessee 6,775 Vermont 5,800 Arizona 1.21
23 New York 6,733 Texas 5,797 Nebraska 1.18
24 Nebraska 6,699 Georgia 5,683 Utah 1.15
25 Louisiana 6,690 Oregon 5,641 Kansas 1.13
26 Vermont 6,667 Kansas 5,576 Vermont 1.13
27 Washington 6,627 Nebraska 5,566 Pennsylvania 1.10
28 Kansas 6,442 Missouri 5,488 Rhode Island 1.10
29 Iowa 6,415 Ohio 5,474 North Carolina 1.08
30 Arizona 6,371 Indiana 5,399 Wyoming 1.05

31 South Carolina 6,355 Hawaii 5,292 Ohio 1.04
32 Florida 6,271 North Carolina 5,271 Georgia 1.04
33 Idaho 6,247 Tennessee 5,212 Indiana 1.01
34 Georgia 5,997 Maine 5,208 Florida 1.00
35 Delaware 5,903 Arizona 5,154 Oregon 0.98
36 New Jersey 5,899 South Dakota 5,151 Texas 0.96
37 California 5,878 Iowa 5,147 Michigan 0.90
38 Colorado 5,820 North Dakota 4,879 Washington 0.89
39 North Carolina 5,791 Idaho 4,672 Wisconsin 0.89
40 Ohio 5,777 South Carolina 4,640 New York 0.87

41 Texas 5,667 Kentucky 4,630 Delaware 0.86
42 Oregon 5,634 Alabama 4,578 Colorado 0.80
43 Illinois 5,577 Montana 4,574 California 0.79
44 Michigan 5,563 Utah 4,527 Massachusetts 0.78
45 Indiana 5,553 Oklahoma 4,512 Illinois 0.78
46 New Hampshire 5,441 Louisiana 4,420 Minnesota 0.78
47 Minnesota 5,390 Arkansas 4,303 Nevada 0.76
48 Utah 5,311 West Virginia 4,020 Connecticut 0.69
49 Wisconsin 5,301 New Mexico 3,944 New Hampshire 0.69
50 Nevada 4,940 Mississippi 3,869 New Jersey 0.66

Sorry, but you're wrong. Looks like the Red States win again...

http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm

It seems to me your figures have proved that we need to keep our money in the west to share among the Western States. You have the midwest and east mixed up in those figures.

Don't you think? To keep their own money, as you say, perhaps?

And North Dakota went for Bush by a landslide margin.

...can be seen here (click the last link). It's outdated, though.

On edit: I fixed the link

That gives us a few loser states that we would have to carry, but at least they have stuff we can use in exchange for our tax money. It would be more equitable. I don't know what is going on in Washington D. C. as far as the General Fund, but I know that money that is needed for our wilderness management isn't coming back to us. Maybe we need two countries. As it is the money is not distributed where it is needed nor returned sufficiently where it is gotten.

...all western states but CA, OR, WA, NV and CO leech money from the federal government. OTOH, since California's population is roughly twice this of the western welfare states taken together, it will more than compensate for that (but then again, the welfare states leech far more money than the funding states give, per capita).

The problem withthe west seceding is that there're considerable differences among the various areas from Colorado westward. Sure, the west coast can live in harmony as long as LA is not part of it, but then you add the other areas and get a total mess. The last thing Cascadians want is to be in the same nation as LA; the last thing the guys in Sierra Nevada with "Sierra Club - kiss my ass" bumper stickers want is to be ruled from San Francisco; the last thing Utans want is to be ruled from anywhere on the west coast; and so on.

from the large urban centers that they are not benefitting from because now it disappears into the general fund in D. C., they might feel differently about it. Also, if we set up a new nation we would probably have a Constitution that will tie all the differences together.

I think we would want good social programs. This is something that all people usually come around to when they see how they work. Everyone wants accessible health care and job security. With all our money going into the DC war machine and the corporate leeches located on the east coast, we in the west are being sorely cheated.

California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington practically fund the whole west already - where do you think North Dakota and Montana get their leech money from?

And anyway, you're forgetting that mountain staters are mostly rugged individualists for whom tax is theft (unless someone else pays it), global warming is a myth, social programs are communism, and the West Coast is the devil's base.

I think the promise of jobs would sweeten them up. I really would like to reverse the damage done by the jobs sent away. I think a smart President, like Barbara Boxer could encourage new industry and make sure that the jerks who are outsourcing pay dearly for the privilege of doing business with us. We really don't need them. New industry needs to be encouraged that is regulated and taxed.

For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to.....
http://zapatopi.net/cascadia.html

http://www.cnp-cascadia.org/ - the site of DU's Cascadian.

You can't live off the forests alone. You will be bankrupt in no time. You need our valleys that produce most of the food on this continent and the pacific ocean ports that can be used all year long, not too mention all the tax revenue generated by our two large urban centers.

Think about it. Also Northern California, eastern Washington and Oregon are heavily Repuke. No liberal utopia for you guys with these people on board and they would be the majority.

:lol:

from BC to Bc( baja) eastern Nv, WA, OR HI.

but I would include ID, Western Montana, and Utah. I know they aren't that liberal but we have assets they can use and they have assets we can use. It would give us what we need to thrive.

During the Mad Reign of George P. Caligula in the 2020s or perhaps the 2030s, there will be some serious hit. But if the history of Empires tells us anything it's that a moribund, Aristocratic Empire which has degenerated beyond any semblence to it's small 'r' republican past, will stop at NOTHING to hold itself together.

Which is of course, in the end, what the PATRIOT Act and TIA (you're dreaming if you think the Imperials have shut that shit down) are all about.

Those Busheviks sure plan ahead. They are planning for Ameristan because they know they their economic plans will cause Third World conditions, in the end.

They have seized this nation and I am 90% certain they won't give it up without a fight.

Now that their disenfranchisement plans and Stalinist Electronic "voting" machines are in place, teh Busheviks are going to win every time and what're you gonna do about it?

Ameristan, Yankoslavia...I think Imperial Amerika will hold together either until it self-destructs from Civil war or our enemies and formewr victims rend us limb from limb as we grow very much weaker. after 2100

We'll need this area, we don't want this area, we should TAKE this area, even if they don't agree with us idealogically.

This is the one of the same reasons so many people in the North were for preserving the Union, the balkanization of the continent, as areas fought wars of indepence, conquest, revolution, etc. etc. and on and on. This wouldn't be beneficial to anybody on this continent, for being so close together even if we broke up, we would still be trading partners. And war destroys trade.

On top of that we would have to decide how to divvy up various things, among them the national debt and all of those nukes.

More strikes against this idea is that if you break America into however many countries, it would weaken us both individually and collectively as an economic power.

Breaking up into several nations is not a good idea. Best to work on keeping this country, our country together and set it back on the course of greatness that our founding fathers foresaw.

going to break us up anyway, if we can't put a stop to what's going on and reverse the trend. So why not do some future planning just in case?

the rest even without WA, OR, HI.