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

1. 67

   steffsingsposted 14 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...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Denseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Assimilation. No!

      replyreport
      1. 67

         steffsingsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
   2. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 93

   habeeposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
3. 65

   TheGlassSpiderposted 14 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.

   replyreport
4. 65

   TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years ago

   This *is* a hypothetical question, right?

   replyreport
5. 67

   steffsingsposted 14 years ago

   Yes, (but maybe not, hmmm...)
   
   Or we could just do:
   Canad'Alaska

   replyreport
   1. 65

      TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 67

         steffsingsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         (Steffsings cracking up now...) Ha!

         replyreport
         1. 65

            TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            hehehehe....glad to share a chuckle

            replyreport
6. 57

   kj.McDanielposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
7. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Second the nomination of Texas.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sure Texas would volunteer to leave.
         
         But if I had to pick a state I would choose Michigan.
         
         Why?
         
         Detroit, most worthless city in the country.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Sylvie Strongposted 14 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
8. 58

   rlaframboiseposted 14 years ago

   Give California back to Mexico before they take it anyway.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      PhoenixPoetposted 14 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
9. 61

   Teresa McGurkposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Tom Cornettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Wow...you just described Ohio too! 

      replyreport
10. 82

    kerrygposted 14 years ago

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

    replyreport
11. 65

    fettyposted 14 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.

    replyreport
12. 93

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    I still say Alabam.

    replyreport
13. 87

    Pamela99posted 14 years ago

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

    replyreport
14. 71

    Abecedarianposted 14 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.

    replyreport
15. 56

    C.J. Wrightposted 14 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!!!!

    replyreport
16. 61

    Christeneposted 14 years ago

    North & South Carolina should just become 'Carolina'
    Same with North & South Dakota.
    Virginia & West Virginia could merge too.
    
    6 states become 3

    replyreport
    1. 93

       Rochelle Frankposted 14 years agoin 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.

       replyreport
17. 56

    C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago

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

    replyreport
18. 67

    steffsingsposted 14 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...]

    replyreport