jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (31 posts)

Balance Nat'l Debt in 30DAYS *BUT* Must Remove 1-STATE-WHICH One Goes?

  1. steffsings profile image83
    steffsingsposted 7 years ago

    A herd of the our nations economists create a 'SURE-FIRE-WAY' to balance US National Debt! which results in...

    1) Lower taxes
    2) Increased Jobs
    3) and  happiness & BIG smiles & general well-being for all

    HOW? Just One US STATE must GO! It will be divide into 1/3's and the surrounding states will absorb their residents & resources

    WHICH STATES WILL IT BE? You decide...

    1. Dense profile image67
      Denseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Assimilation. No!

      1. steffsings profile image83
        steffsingsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's for the greater GOOD... ( and general well being of all - no Borg involved)

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know D.C. is not a state but that's the one that goes.  If I have to pick an actual state, I say California.

  2. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I vote for Alabama - it was once part of GA, anyway! but so was Mississippi!

  3. TheGlassSpider profile image82
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    West Virginia......Our poor state gets raped and forgotten! Maybe if it got divvied up people would pay more attention to our crisis areas. Plus, it used to be part of Virginia.

  4. TheGlassSpider profile image82
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    This *is* a hypothetical question, right?

  5. steffsings profile image83
    steffsingsposted 7 years ago

    Yes, (but maybe not, hmmm...)

    Or we could just do:

    1. TheGlassSpider profile image82
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Noo, that'd never fly...We can't give land away, now! Plus - thar's earl up in that thar ice.

      1. steffsings profile image83
        steffsingsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        (Steffsings cracking up now...) Ha!

        1. TheGlassSpider profile image82
          TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          hehehehe....glad to share a chuckle smile

  6. profile image60
    kj.McDanielposted 7 years ago

    Wyoming.  No one would notice it was gone, and it would make no practical difference to the economy (coal and pastureland).  Would also give surrounding states a good amount of landfill space.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Except for the energy companies.  There's quite a bit of potential energy locked up up underneath Wyoming.  Why else do you think we don't hear much about the state?  They don't want anyone else to know.  It's quiet there and that's how they like it.

  7. JeniferD profile image60
    JeniferDposted 6 years ago

    I say we get rid of Texas.  They've been whining about seceding anyway!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Second the nomination of Texas.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure Texas would volunteer to leave.

        But if I had to pick a state I would choose Michigan.


        Detroit, most worthless city in the country.

        1. Sylvie Strong profile image60
          Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As PhoenixPoet pointed out, I think some people are missing the thread a bit.  For this to work, the state has to be assimilated, i.e., lose its identity and be absorbed by the states around it.  It doesn't get to leave and we don't get to kick it out.  We just stop paying for it to have a separate identity.  I hate to say it, but I think it needs to be a fly-over state in the middle of the country...who would miss it?  Maybe we take a poll and if a majority of a state's own citizens can't find their state on a map, it gets assimilated.  Although I'm a little afraid that might warrant losing a great many states.

  8. rlaframboise profile image59
    rlaframboiseposted 6 years ago

    Give California back to Mexico before they take it anyway.

    1. PhoenixPoet profile image61
      PhoenixPoetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No the state has to be assimilated by neighboring states!
      We, could, however, absorb Mexico AND Canada.
      There would be more people to tax, the illegals could go back to where they came from and STILL get benefits from being American AND let's face it--how many Canadian actors come here for work anyway?
      I wouldn't mind losing acting work to them--as much--if they were at least fellow countrymen!

  9. Teresa McGurk profile image60
    Teresa McGurkposted 6 years ago

    Well, I hesitate to say this, because I don't like sounding as mean and rude as I really am, but if we got rid of South Carolina (where I have lived since 1984) the average IQ in the states would zoom up considerably.

    Now, before I get hate mail, I'd just like to say that the people in South Carolina are just as smart as anyone else in any other part of the country. But the education system here sucks so much that the folk who hand out high school diplomas are guilty of fraud.

    1. Tom Cornett profile image57
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow...you just described Ohio too!  smile

  10. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 6 years ago

    Why get rid of only one? I thought this was kind of a neat idea.

  11. fetty profile image76
    fettyposted 6 years ago

    Probably North Dakota. There are so few people living there. However, the land is rich, flat and known for its wheat crop. I'm not sure South Dakota would want them.

  12. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I still say Alabam.

  13. Pamela99 profile image84
    Pamela99posted 6 years ago

    California as they need bailout money to survive and Mexico thinks its there property anyway.

  14. Abecedarian profile image81
    Abecedarianposted 6 years ago

    It would be Alaska, the welfare state.  In 1996 they took in more federal money than any state, something like 31% above the national average.  Today it's 71%. They pay $1 in highway taxes and get back $5.76 for every dollar they pay.  It's like a pyramid scheme in that state.  They get so much federal money that they aren't experiencing the job losses that we are in the lower 48.  Since, we're almost completely supporting them already, might as well take over it.

  15. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    I'm torn, my head says Michigan, but my heart says CALIFORNIA!!!!
    It would take California months to even realize we ditched them!

    Besides the nicest part of Michigan is the UP and half of those people think they are Canadians anyway!

    No wait a minute I misread.....

    OK here is what we need to do:

    Split Cali, but split it 8 ways, creating 7 new states. That way we have 57 STATES!!!!

  16. Christene profile image79
    Christeneposted 6 years ago

    North & South Carolina should just become 'Carolina'
    Same with North & South Dakota.
    Virginia & West Virginia could merge too.

    6 states become 3 big_smile

    1. Rochelle Frank profile image89
      Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This makes the most sense so far -- it would be easier for people to remember where they are. It would also get rid of six senators.

  17. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    In reality I don't like the idea. The States are what stand between the people and the Federal Government.

  18. steffsings profile image83
    steffsingsposted 6 years ago

    I've thought long & hard... I think Wyoming! There are only a few thousand of you there anyway (minus the bison that you so cleverly use to 'beef' up census) As a parting gift, they could keep the 'W'  - Widaho, Wutah, and my personal favorite... "WhyNEBRASKA????

    [politically correct disclaimer: an obvious attempt at humor, I love Wyoming as much as any other 'badland' state... and your bison too: xoxox's...etc...]