Due to your vast experience and decision making skills, you have been selected to serve on the prestigous U.S. Committee for New States.

You have been given the important task or reoganizing our nation with the addition of anywhere from three to five new states.

These states are to be established to allow government to function more efficiently.

The rules, established by Congress, as to the establishment of these new states includes the following:

• New states must represent major metropolitan areas

• Only the largest and most complex metro areas should be considered for reorganization; this recongnizes that smaller metro areas may be functioning perfect well in their existing states

• Each new state needs to be a viable state, based on the existing 50 states

• Serious considertion should be given to metro areas that cross state borders

So, with those rules and anywhere from three to five states to create, what states do you plan to support in the committee's decision making role? What are the boundaries of the new states? Why did you choose the states you chose? Why did you not include some other possibly obvious choices.

So, for example, the boundaries of the new state of Chicago are Chicago and its collar counties in Illinois, n.w. Indiana, and Kenosha Co. in Wisconsin.

Or an example of why a new state of New York City is being established is because the huge New York metro area needs to function without regards to current state lines

Or an example of why a new state is not being created in Houston is because this city relates too well to the state of Texas to remove it from the state.

None of the examples above are necessarily good....they just have been included for the purpose of example (so Houston may very well be an excellent candidte for its own state).

[B]SO, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WHICH 3 TO 5 STATES WILL WE BE ADDING?

This is kind of stupid, the only one I would suggest doesn't even fit into your criterea, Upstate NY should split from downstate and become it's own state.

My only suggestion, without much though, is North California and South California. Everyone talks about how different the two areas are, they should split the state in half.

I wouldn't considering combining the small NE states. They each have so much identity and history as small states. I also agree with the Upstate/NYC suggestion.

You want us to do your homework for you?
Perto Rico and Gaum are the only two i can think of and just to piss some people off ill include Canada, this is after all an American Forum.

Put VT, NH, MA, RI, and the parts of CT that isn't in NYC's metro into one state.

Also Since Virginia and West Virginia were split because of the Civil War, they should be joined again.

^but that was over 200 years ago! They're as distinct as former same-staters like Maine and Massachusettes or Kentucky and Virginia!

All i'd suggest is putting all of NYC metro in one state and make it the capital. That way the city won't have to deal with Albany any more. That would be like half of NJ so you might as well give the rest of New Jersey to Philadelphia

There is NO chance for a part of a state to secede to become it's own state...

...but if there was, make Fairfield County (Stamford and Greewich) part of NY, and give Western Mass to CT. Western Mass has more in common with Hartford than Stamford does anyway.

...or combine Mass, RI, and CT (except for Fairfield) into a super-state. But then we would be dominated by Boston, and NOBODY wants that.

Or just give all of CT to a new Downstate New York State, I like that the most. It would be cool to be known as a New Yorker than a Connecticutter (sp?)

All i'd suggest is putting all of NYC metro in one state and make it the capital. That way the city won't have to deal with Albany any more. That would be like half of NJ so you might as well give the rest of New Jersey to Philadelphia

I don't think you understand, in the "splitting of New York State" Albany goes with NYC, the part of the state that is being the most oppressed by Albany is the one that gets to escape it, and that is DEFINITELY Western NY. Here's a map I made when this topic was brought up a while ago.


http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a221/nixter369/NewYorkSplit.jpg

^but that was over 200 years ago!2006 - 1863 = 143 ;)

this hasing nothing to do with adding a state, but i believe wisconsin should have the UP of michigan!....most of the citizens up there have so many connections with N. Wis... but that will never happen michigan needs lake superior.

^^
The reason the U.P. is in Michigan and not Wisconsin goes back to the old Northwest Territory days. Originally, It was planned that what is now the U.P. would be in Wisconsin. What changed this is the following circumstances. Everything south of a line drawn east to west from the bottom of Lake Michigan would be in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio respectively. Ohio was first to enter the union as a state and grabbed land north of this line which is where Toledo is. In compensation Michigan (which entered the union before Wisconsin) was given the U.P.

Actually, Michigan already controlled the eastern portion of the UP (basically everything east of Escanaba), it only gained the remaining portion of what is considered the UP during the Toledo War. In the end Ohio got the raw end of the deal as the western portion of the UP was extremely rich in different metals.

In the end Ohio got the raw end of the deal as the western portion of the UP was extremely rich in different metals.

Unless you consider the fact Wisconsin got nothing.

There was no such thing as Wisconsin at that time. The Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836 only 5 months before the Toledo War was resolved. Prior to the creation of the Wisconsin Territory, all of Wisconsin was under the control of the Michigan Territory. So basically, Michigan took back land that was under Wisconsin control for only five months.

There was no such thing as Wisconsin at that time. The Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836 only 5 months before the Toledo War was resolved. Prior to the creation of the Wisconsin Territory, all of Wisconsin was under the control of the Michigan Territory. So basically, Michigan took back land that was under Wisconsin control for only five months.

That is true; but, I'm referring to the geographic lines for forseen future states which were outlined in the Congressional Ordinance of 1787 regarding the Northwest Territory.

this hasing nothing to do with adding a state, but i believe wisconsin should have the UP of michigan!....most of the citizens up there have so many connections with N. Wis... but that will never happen michigan needs lake superior.

True, but then i demand we get Toledo, and Sandusky.

Does Michigan still want Toledo from Ohio... today...?

So that's why UP is part of MI! Interesting.

Unless you consider the fact Wisconsin got nothing.

Especially when the border of Illinois was move up 50 miles, Wisconsin would of gotten the bottem fourth of Lake Michigan too with Chicago...

Well, Wisconsin doesn't need a border control? and the Wisconsin gets to have suburbs in the great Midwestern cities of Chicago and Minneapolis... (isn't that great ;) )

1. Get rid of California and have North California (w/ Bay Area at its center) and South California (with LA at its center). Maybe with different names to avoid confusion between the "Californias" and the "Carolinas".

2. Make the NYC metro area (incl. Connecticut, Westchester County, all of Long Island, and Northern NJ) into its own state

These aren't new states, just rearranged:

-Since Northern NJ is part of a new state, give Southern NJ to Pennslyvania so it can be more incorporated into the Philly metro.

-Give the northwestern Indiana counties to Illinois so they can be more assimilated into Chicagoland... Kenosha Co. in Wisconsin is still up in the air.

In short, here are my choices:

Area--New State Name--Capital

--Upper Peninsula of Michgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan)--"North Michigan" (perhaps?)--Marquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_Michigan)
--Chicagoland--"Chicago"--Guess
--Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties--"Independent City-State of Miami-Dade and the Florida Keys" ("Miami and the Keys" or "South Florida" for short)--Miami and Key West (Alternating)
--New York City and Long Island--"New York City", "Independent City-State of New York City", or "South New York"--New York City (Naw....)

Still thinking about the 5th one.

I dunno, here it goes:

Southern California, Capitol: San Diego

E. Washington/N. Idaho- Capitol: the Tri-Cities

So. Florida, Capitol: Key West

Location: New State Name -- Captial

Southern California: California Sur -- L.A.

Norhtern California: California Norte -- Sacramento

Northeastern Wisconsin/ U.P. of Michigan: Hiawatha -- Marinette-Menominee

Southern Texas: New Texas -- San Antonio

Eastern Texas: Texas -- Austin

Western Texas: West Texas -- Lubbuck

I think California and Nevada should be combined and then split in three.

Northern CA + Reno/Tahoe should be a State

Southern CA + Las Vegas should be a State

The Remainder of NV should be given to Utah.

1. Get rid of California and have North California (w/ Bay Area at its center) and South California (with LA at its center). Maybe with different names to avoid confusion between the "Californias" and the "Carolinas".

It can't get anymore confusing than it already is. Remember, California was originally Alta California (Upper California) when it was part of Mexico as just below it lies Baja California (Lower California). Since then, in Mexico, Baja California has been split into two states: Baja California Sur and Baja California Norte (South and North Lower California). So I don't see why there can't be 4 or more Californias total.

You want us to do your homework for you?
Perto Rico and Gaum are the only two i can think of and just to piss some people off ill include Canada, this is after all an American Forum.

Just to throw out an alternative to statehood without statehood: what if we make Puerto Rico a county of Florida and Guam a county of Hawaii? :runaway:

Also it would be nice if they combined north dakota and south dakota and just named it new dakota...and this will enable the govt to split california without adding another star.

Ahh..yes the dualing armines of the medievil midwest

South and North Texas
I wouldnt mind Puerto Rico and Guam.

GREAT now i have to learn more capitals. :)

I don't think you understand, in the "splitting of New York State" Albany goes with NYC, the part of the state that is being the most oppressed by Albany is the one that gets to escape it, and that is DEFINITELY Western NY. Here's a map I made when this topic was brought up a while ago.


http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a221/nixter369/NewYorkSplit.jpg
I insist, YOU have Albany. I am tired of New York City bankrolling New York State only to have Upstaters bitch about how much THEY get opressed whereas we get bled like lambs at the slaughter subsidizing the broke north.

Here's my take:

Area/Name/Capitol


1. Illinois south of the Illinois river/ Lincoln/ Springfield

2. Illinois north of the Illinois river/ Dearborn/ Chicago

3. Missouri north of the Ozarks(including St. Louis)/ Missouri/ Jefferson City

4. the Ozark region of Missouri/ Missoura/ Branson

5. the panhandle of Texas and Oklahoma/ Cimarron/ Amarillo or Lubbock

I have a few more ideas but these are most feasible. :)

I insist, YOU have Albany. I am tired of New York City bankrolling New York State only to have Upstaters bitch about how much THEY get opressed whereas we get bled like lambs at the slaughter subsidizing the broke north.

Oh God, relax. We're just sick of sending our money down to fund NYC's social programs for your millions of poor people, and we're sick of having to pay more in taxes that companies up here can't afford which only global companies in NYC can. If you don't mind a split then I don't, I'm sick of hearing the Capitol of World complain about sending more money our way that we don't get. We really can't take Albany in this hypothetical split because we want to get rid of the symbol of NYS government dysfunction.

Obviously the state isn't going to split, the only real thing that might happen would be NYC alone seceding and becoming an independent city like D.C. This means that NYC can fend for itself and won't have all the state money to fall back on to fund their current state mandating social programs.

You go BJ. Donqui and most other NYC meto people just don't get it. Nobody says that Upstate FUNDS NYC, nobody says that we keep it alive. But that NYC sucks the money from the state AND that they control all of the politics. If NYC and Upstate NY weren't in the same state, Upstate would flourish. WHY? Because the ONLY reason it isn't is becasue of the down-state controlled spend crazy governent that gives NY the HIGHEST TAX BURDEN IN THE NATION. Upstate NY has the same property taxes on houses in which the people who reside make half of what the people in NYC make, yet they pay the same taxes as they people in Metro NYC? Not right.

I think you should make more states on west, but not with sthraight borders. California could be splited in two, and you should somehow ''brake'' those 4squarres block on SW. It looks to artifficial. Also some reorganization around NewYork eillbe OK. I think That NYC has much more with Newyersey than with Albany

I think you should make more states on west, but not with sthraight borders. California could be splited in two, and you should somehow ''brake'' those 4squarres block on SW. It looks to artifficial. Also some reorganization around NewYork eillbe OK. I think That NYC has much more with Newyersey than with Albany
They are artifficial theres not a wall or anything, its just an imaginary line.

Well, if we simply annexed the states we did have...
[IMG]

I think you should make more states on west, but not with sthraight borders. California could be splited in two, and you should somehow ''brake'' those 4squarres block on SW. It looks to artifficial. Also some reorganization around NewYork eillbe OK. I think That NYC has much more with Newyersey than with Albany

no! they must leave the 4 corners...that will ruin all the fun of it being the only 4 corner touch or whatever

They are artifficial theres not a wall or anything, its just an imaginary line.
i know thwere is no wall :bash: , i said that becouse borders like in Europe or NE are more natural, they are shaped throgh history. To me that looks better

1. New York City: made up of portions of NY St, CT, NJ

2. Chicagoland: made up of portions of IL, IN, WI

3. Columbia: DC, adjacent portions of VA, MD

4. Northern California and Southern Califonrnia

5. Pennsylvirgin: western PA and WV

6. South Florida

Pennsylvirgin... :laugh:

Since Atlanta has already practically eaten north Georgia, it should split from south Georgia. Make the capital of South Georgia Savannah.

i know thwere is no wall :bash: , i said that becouse borders like in Europe or NE are more natural, they are shaped throgh history. To me that looks better

The US has little history tho, and most boarders are either mountains or rivers which the West has little huge ones, some states would be huge while others will be real small also a lot of the straight lines come from slavery.

^^Another reason why western states have such featureless borders is that when most western states were founded their populations were very small and widely scattered ( some still are ) so the best way to set up governments for widely scattered, sparse populations was to create just a few sprawling states as opposed to many tiny ones. It was easier to established the borders of these sprawling states by just drawing a straight line on the map as opposed to painstakinly identifying every river and mountain range that might make up each border. So I would imagine that lazyness played a big part in the formation of western state borders.

Lawmaker revisits NYC secession

By Chuck Bennett
amNewYork Staff Writer

May 15, 2006

New York City -- the 51st state. It's an old idea being revived once again in the City Council.

Months before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, New York City Mayor Fernando Wood proposed seceding from the state and creating the "Free City of Tri-Insula" to keep the lucrative cotton trade with the South alive.

A little over a hundred years later in 1969, writers Norman Mailer and Jimmy Breslin ran for mayor and council speaker on a statehood campaign.

And now Queens Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. says he is "deadly serious" about having the Big Apple secede from the Empire State.

He first introduced the secession bill in 2003 and reintroduced the long-shot legislation last week.

"The only reason we are in bad financial condition is because of Albany," he said, citing the $3.5 billion in taxes the city pays to Albany but isn't returned in funding. "We just want our own money back."

Vallone, an ambitious politicians and son of the former council speaker Peter Vallone, wants a citywide referendum to create a commission to study secession and the creation of a "Greater New York."

Personally, he likes the idea of calling the new state -- which would be the 10th largest in the union -- Gotham or just New York.

But to ever get there, secession would need approval voters, the Legislature, the governor, Congress and then the president.

"It's a waste of time and money," says former mayor Ed Koch. "The city doesn't have the right to secede nor should it, in my judgment."

Vallone, however, says he expects wide support for his bill in the council -- especially as anger rises over Albany's failure to comply with a court order calling for more state funding of New York City schools.

Christine Quinn, the speaker of the council, did not return calls for comment.

A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg shot down the idea.

Everyday New Yorkers, however, were open to secession.

"I like the idea, it's great. We generate the bulk of the state's income, but when it comes to making decisions we have to depend on Albany ... The politicians in Albany don't know what it's like to live here," said David Gonzales, 48, a human resources consultant.

Likewise, political observers say the merits of secession are worth debating.

The secession bill is a "good way to call attention to the issue of discrimination against the city in state programs," said Prof. Doug Muzzio, a political science professor at Baruch College.

For instance, New York City has 84% of the state's mass transit riders but only receives 61% of the state's mass transit funds.

"It does make a point that there is a continual struggle between New York City and upstate regions," said Alan Chartock, publisher of the Legislative Gazette.

He quickly added, "Everyone knows it ain't ever going to happen. ... [Vallone] does it because he knows he is going to get his puss in the paper."

IMO----most of the ideas floating around about miami dade county area, chicago or parts of michigan seem absurd to me; i dont know?
my opinion is:
1. Join the Dakotas and the Virginias. Not the Carolinas to much History there.
2. Split California
3. split New York
4.I like the idea of adding Puerto Rico and Guam As Counties.

50 states again.

I think instead of more states, you people should maybe get rid of a few. Maybe all the way down to just one big state. LOL.
Seriously, do you need all 50? Not to piss anyone off but I would bet a lot of Americans can't even name all 50.

We learn the 50 states and their capitals in 3rd or 4th grade i think its a requirement for all schools to teach.

I can name all the states and capitals... and 3 largest cities and their populations of every state...........Yeah, I have no life, I know. lol

We learn the 50 states and their capitals in 3rd or 4th grade i think its a requirement for all schools to teach.

I did and still remember most!
anyone remember that cherios commercial where the little girl say, "Montpelier" when her older sisiter cant remember the cap. of Vermont.
uhhhhh childhood memories!

It can't get anymore confusing than it already is. Remember, California was originally Alta California (Upper California) when it was part of Mexico as just below it lies Baja California (Lower California). Since then, in Mexico, Baja California has been split into two states: Baja California Sur and Baja California Norte (South and North Lower California). So I don't see why there can't be 4 or more Californias total.

Why not? We'll name the two states Alta California Norte and Alta California Sur (CN and CS). Better reflection of historical reality.

And also... CN would have its capital at Sacramento, while CS would have its capital at San Diego (smaller city wins).

I can name all the states and capitals... and 3 largest cities and their populations of every state...........Yeah, I have no life, I know. lol

Roc, I hope you realize that today the vast majority of American high school seniors don't even know we have 50 states, where the vast majority of them are located...and would be surprised to know that these states even have capitals.

It wouldn't surprise me about the first two (I've met so many Americans and Canadians who think there are more than 50 states, such as Puerto Rico!), but come on, everyone must know about a state having a capital!

I did and still remember most!
anyone remember that cherios commercial where the little girl say, "Montpelier" when her older sisiter cant remember the cap. of Vermont.
uhhhhh childhood memories!

Yeah, that was like 5 years ago. lol. I remember it clearly. It was a little african american boy who was probably 8 and his sister was probably 2 or 3 and after she said it, he got on the bus.

Roc, I hope you realize that today the vast majority of American high school seniors don't even know we have 50 states, where the vast majority of them are located...and would be surprised to know that these states even have capitals.

I know, I'm surrounded by them every day. It scares the crap out of me. One of these dipshits are going to be in their "prime" at the same time as me?

Why does everybody think California needs to be split in half, I'm fine with it the way it is.

If you saw the episode on Futurama where Bender becomes a broken robot and helps Beck with his music, you will notice the changes in the states.

Why not? We'll name the two states Alta California Norte and Alta California Sur (CN and CS). Better reflection of historical reality.
Alta California? sounds like reconquista speach?

I would say:
North California-Cap.Sacramento
South California-Cap.San Diego
Conbine Rhode Island and Conecticut-Cap.Quahog?
NY-Cap.Albany
W.NY-Cap.Buffalo
S.Texas-Cap.San Antonio
Texas-Cap.Austin

Texas would still be a red state and S.Tex may be blue. NY will be much more liberal and W.NY will become a swing state. It's hard to say which would be more liberal N.CA or S.CA, in the short term the North but eventually the South?

...It was easier to established the borders of these sprawling states by just drawing a straight line on the map as opposed to painstakinly identifying every river and mountain range that might make up each border. So I would imagine that lazyness played a big part in the formation of western state borders.

It wasn't laziness though. It was a result of the Thomas Jefferson's survey of the US Territories. The establishment of a grid generally west of the original 13 colonies across the US divided the land into arbitrary rectangles based on a one-mile square. This is in contrast to earlier ideas of dividing the land according to rivers, ridges and the like.

It's fascinating to see this when you look at county lines. You can use a fun interactive map at the National Atlas website here (http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp)

Alta California? sounds like reconquista speach?

I would say:
North California-Cap.Sacramento
South California-Cap.San Diego
Conbine Rhode Island and Conecticut-Cap.Quahog?
NY-Cap.Albany
W.NY-Cap.Buffalo
S.Texas-Cap.San Antonio
Texas-Cap.Austin

That all sounds good except that the new capitol of WNY should either be Rochester or Ithaca because they would be more centrally located than Buffalo.

Why does everybody think California needs to be split in half, I'm fine with it the way it is.

Very true. Not that everything is fine in California. Far from it. But splitting the state won't solve any of the fundamental problems. The old north-south divide has lessoned. The present divide is really more coastal vs. central valley. But even there in many ways the coast & the valley are becoming more alike.

I can name all the states and capitals... and 3 largest cities and their populations of every state...........Yeah, I have no life, I know. lol
Quick... what are the 3 largest cities of Delaware? Of Wyoming? North Dakota?

If you saw the episode on Futurama where Bender becomes a broken robot and helps Beck with his music, you will notice the changes in the states.
Yeah like Pennslyvania had been divided into east and west, named "Penn Republic" and "Slyvania" respectively. I'm trying to think of more. I'll have to remember to pause the TiVo next time that one is on.

Quick... what are the 3 largest cities of Delaware? Of Wyoming? North Dakota?

1. Wilmington, Newark, Dover

2. Cheyenne, Laramie,..... and it falls off greatly from there

3. Fargo, Bismark, Grand Forks.

1. Wilmington, Newark, Dover

2. Cheyenne, Laramie,..... and it falls off greatly from there

3. Fargo, Bismark, Grand Forks.

how about whats the 4th largest city in wisconsin?

Let's do some petty playwork...

http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~bjchow/map.PNG

^^"Iroquoian England" would be a really powerful state. Imagine Philly, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, and Boston all in one state. :runaway:
That would easily be the most populous state in the nation especially with California split like that.

edit

how about whats the 4th largest city in wisconsin?

I'm gonna guess either Either Janesville or Beloit.

How the hell does Virginia not get included in the CSA when Richmond was the Capital?????

Good question. I've always wondered why they made the confederate capital Richmond when it was so close to the Northern Border. You'd think they would have chosen a more centrally located capital like Atlanta or something.... but then again, they are southerers! lol :jk:

How the hell does Virginia not get included in the CSA when Richmond was the Capital?????

Exactly what I was thinking. Virginia was the capitol of the Confederacy and seceded after South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, but seceded before Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina.........

As a side note, Danville, VA was the capitol of the Confederacy for a short time.

I think Virginia was the most industrial and properous state in the south at the time. Maybe the most populous too?

I think Virginia was the most industrial and properous state in the south at the time. Maybe the most populous too?

Yes, it was! Virginia was very much an "aristocratic" state back then and still has that quality to it. :)

Good question. I've always wondered why they made the confederate capital Richmond when it was so close to the Northern Border. You'd think they would have chosen a more centrally located capital like Atlanta or something.... but then again, they are southerers! lol :jk:
Atlanta back then was not nearly the city it is today. I don't even think it was in the top 10 most populous confederate cities.

I think it had a population of near 10,000... but , it was still a centrally located southern capitol.

I didn't include virginia in the CSA because in the map that Facial posted Virginia included Washington D.C. The capital of the USA trumps the capital of the CSA so iVirginia went to the USA. In compensation, I gave Oklahoma to the CSA. :)

I didn't include virginia in the CSA because in the map that Facial posted Virginia included Washington D.C. The capital of the USA trumps the capital of the CSA so iVirginia went to the USA. In compensation, I gave Oklahoma to the CSA. :)

Ummm, ok :|

^It was just a stupid theoretical map anyway so whats with the attitude?

^It was just a stupid theoretical map anyway so whats with the attitude?

:lol: Relax ORDgasm.

It's just that Washington D.C. is between Virginia and Maryland; not part of Virginia......it was carved out of both states.
Texas was also a confederate state that you excluded. But, I guess it is it's own country in a way.

I guess it's nice to have our own peice of the Plains/Lower Midwest with Oklahoma though. :)

^Yes, yes, I was not trying to accuratly portray the real historical confederacy. Again, it was just a joke.

Just to throw out an alternative to statehood without statehood: what if we make Puerto Rico a county of Florida and Guam a county of Hawaii? :runaway:

this sounds good....agree with you

^^ Give St. Louis and Minneapolis to the Great Lake State... the Great Lake State could give away the rest of Louisville Metro, um... and Youngstown...

the 4th largest city in Wisconsin is Kenosha, aka so far, the largest suburb of Chicago in Wisconsin.

Beloit isn't even in the Top 10 of Wisconsin and Janesville is 10th largest in Wisconsin.

How about this?

Hartford and Springfield metros become one state, since we have not much to do with CT or MA....2 million strong, 100 billion GDP, a powerful...but small (bigger than RI) state.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,The U.S Territory of Guam,The Commonwealth of The Northern Marianas,The U.S Virgin Islands and American Samoa should all one day become U.S States....

I don't think Puerto Rico would want to become a county of Florida,and I don't think Guam would want to become a county of Hawaii...

California should remain as one State :-)

^^Another reason why western states have such featureless borders is that when most western states were founded their populations were very small and widely scattered ( some still are ) so the best way to set up governments for widely scattered, sparse populations was to create just a few sprawling states as opposed to many tiny ones. It was easier to established the borders of these sprawling states by just drawing a straight line on the map as opposed to painstakinly identifying every river and mountain range that might make up each border. So I would imagine that lazyness played a big part in the formation of western state borders.

I've noticed that aside from Hawai'i, which has no land boundaries, there isn't a single state that DOES NOT have a straight line forming part of its boundary. I think that New Jersey has the lowest proportion of straight-segment boundary vs. natural formation boundary.

I've noticed that aside from Hawai'i, which has no land boundaries, there isn't a single state that DOES NOT have a straight line forming part of its boundary. I think that New Jersey has the lowest proportion of straight-segment boundary vs. natural formation boundary.

No...how about West Virginia??

West Virginia has an entire NW border of two straght lines with PA.

If you keep on dividing the U.S., pretty soon there will be a civil war here in SSC.

We ain't talkin about forming new countires, just re-dividing the states. Also, it's not serious.

Also Since Virginia and West Virginia were split because of the Civil War, they should be joined again.

Lol its like saying how Mississippi and Alabama where in Georgia they should join again and become Georgia.

http://www.state.sc.us/arts/images/media/southeastern_region.gif

Imagine those 3 states together like it used to and be 1...

i don't think Georgia needs to get bigger considering it is the largest state east of the MIssissippi river...

Georgia never included Alabama and Mississippi. It was merely theoreticaly because like all of the original colonies except for South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut and Rhode Island.... it went on westward all the way to the pacific ocean. But Georgia didn't really have any jurisdiciton over Mississippi or Alabama anymore than Pennsylvania had jurisidction over present day Illinois.

Oh God, relax. We're just sick of sending our money down to fund NYC's social programs for your millions of poor people, and we're sick of having to pay more in taxes that companies up here can't afford which only global companies in NYC can. If you don't mind a split then I don't, I'm sick of hearing the Capitol of World complain about sending more money our way that we don't get. We really can't take Albany in this hypothetical split because we want to get rid of the symbol of NYS government dysfunction.

Obviously the state isn't going to split, the only real thing that might happen would be NYC alone seceding and becoming an independent city like D.C. This means that NYC can fend for itself and won't have all the state money to fall back on to fund their current state mandating social programs.
You go BJ. Donqui and most other NYC meto people just don't get it. Nobody says that Upstate FUNDS NYC, nobody says that we keep it alive. But that NYC sucks the money from the state AND that they control all of the politics. If NYC and Upstate NY weren't in the same state, Upstate would flourish. WHY? Because the ONLY reason it isn't is becasue of the down-state controlled spend crazy governent that gives NY the HIGHEST TAX BURDEN IN THE NATION. Upstate NY has the same property taxes on houses in which the people who reside make half of what the people in NYC make, yet they pay the same taxes as they people in Metro NYC? Not right.
Listen to the two of you whining. You complain that Upstate is not doing well.

So, why in Christ's name would the world's 16th largest economy and the economic hub of the most powerful, wealthiest, and largest economy of the world need to be funded, BY A RUST BELT?!

:rofl:

1) Upstate is poor.

2) Metro New York makes up 75% of the state's population. As metro New York is SIGNIFICANTLY wealthier than the tin pile that is northern New York, I would imagine that perhaps 80-85 cents of every tax dollar spent in New York State comes from metro New York.

3) The only reason New York state as a whole is doing well is because our population is growing whereas people are fleeing the rust bin that is north and west of Albany.

So the both of you, deal with reality: metro New York is your suga daddy. New York City per capita is at about $59.000 a year. Monroe County where Rochester is located is at about $22.000 a year. And that $59.000 a year is just New York City, that figure jumps up to be between triple and cuadruple upstate income.

But yes, people that are only 1/3 or 1/4 as wealthy as metro New York are the ones paying for New York.

:rofl: :weird:

Did you guys go to the Dubya School of economics?

Metro New York is going to be fucked over by a hurricane within the next 20 years according to most meteorolagists, and come begging for more aid form the state and nation, whilste the rest of us remember how "high and mighty" they claim to be..... then they can SUCK IT! You are so thickheaded it's unbelieveable. Did you even READ the post? Nobody says Upstate funds Downstate or that downstate is dependant on Upstate. But that the downstate controlled government has given the WHOLE state the highest tax burden in the nation. Again, travel west of the Hudson river and get some insight before you trash 80% of the land area of the state you think you own.

By this logic of claimed land, CT had parts of Northeast Ohio, so we claim Cleveland :)

Metro New York is going to be fucked over by a hurricane within the next 20 years and come begging for more aid form the state..... then they can SUCK IT!
Upstate is between 30 and 40% as wealthy as metro New York.

If any part of New York State receives welfare, it's you rust belters. :)

And that is why I am filled with nothing but enmity for New York State as a whole. When New York City was stuttering, the decades of subsidizing your broke regions, this generosity was completely forgotten and Upstate let New York City rot.

It's time the favor was returned.

New York City per capita is at about $59.000 a year. Monroe County where Rochester is located is at about $22.000 a year. And that $59.000 a year is just New York City, that figure jumps up to be between triple and cuadruple upstate income in the suburbs.

But yes, people that are only 1/3 or 1/4 as wealthy as metro New York are the ones paying for New York.

:rofl: :weird:

Can you believe this dumbass? He still hasn't read the post. Who said Upstate is paying for new york? You're dumb as shit! You can brag all you want about how superior, educated and wealthy you are in NYC (I would feel REALLY wealthy living in a 500 sq. foot dump with a view of concrete slabs.... but knowing that Donald Trump lived less than a mile away!) But you can't even comprehend simple sentances. You just don't want to admit that you can't even outwit a 17 year old. So go ahead, keep misquoting me if it makes you feel better. It's clear you're just a broken record with no real point and just a bunch of half baked insults.


lol, You can't even get numbers straight.... the per capita personal incomes are way off for both areas you rerferred to... Rochester MSA'S average per capita is 32,303 while the NYC MSA's is 43,277. Not 22k and 60k.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm


lol, you just totaly pulled numbers out of your head.

Can you believe this dumbass? He still hasn't read the post. Who said Upstate is paying for new york? You're dumb as shit! You can brag all you want about how superior, educated and wealthy you are in NYC (I would feel REALLY wealthy living in a 500 sq. foot dump with a view of concrete slabs.... but knowing that Donald Trump lived less than a mile away!) But you can't even comprehend simple sentances. You just don't want to admit that you can't even outwit a 17 year old. So go ahead, keep misquoting me if it makes you feel better. It's clear you're just a broken record with no real point and just a bunch of half baked insults.
Oh dear. :ohno:

Personal insults are a nono. :nono: I will be the greater person and acknowledge simply as frustration for having the lost the debate with semi-salient arguments on your part that could not stand the rigors of analysis.

You guys have been saying that Upstate is subsidizing New York City's social programs. And I re-iterate: when Upstate New York is only 1/3 as wealthy as metro New York, this is simply not possible.

Where were the insults? All I say is the truth. And BTW, your little juvenile tirade does illustrate your youth. Talk to me when you grow up, my rust-belt friend. ;)

See above.

Upstate is between 30 and 40% as wealthy as metro New York.

If any part of New York State receives welfare, it's you rust belters. :)

And that is why I am filled with nothing but enmity for New York State as a whole. When New York City was stuttering, the decades of subsidizing your broke regions, this generosity was completely forgotten and Upstate let New York City rot.

It's time the favor was returned.

New York City per capita is at about $59.000 a year. Monroe County where Rochester is located is at about $22.000 a year. And that $59.000 a year is just New York City, that figure jumps up to be between triple and cuadruple upstate income in the suburbs.

But yes, people that are only 1/3 or 1/4 as wealthy as metro New York are the ones paying for New York.

:rofl: :weird:
First of all, the dump that is the Bronx is not the county of New York producing the dough you're talking about. I wouldn't call northern New York a shitty rustbelt region when, in fact, the Bronx is the shittiest borough of New York City. I'll take pristine woodlands and untouched lakes and forests anyday over some dying neighborhoods severly in need of gentrification. It's the SAME thing. The Bronx isn't the county providing New York with the dough, it's MANHATTAN. You're bragging like you have some penthouse in midtown Manhattan overlooking Central Park the way you talk about New York City's per capita income.
The Bronx:
The per capita income for the borough was $13,959. 30.7% of the population and 28.0% of families were below the poverty line. 41.5% of those under the age of 18 and 21.3% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.
Yeah, you're living the high life alright. :omg:

OMFG!!!!! THIS IDIOT LIVES IN THE BRONX AND IS BRAGGING OUT HIS AREAS WEALTH AND SUPERIORITY!?!!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

First of all, the dump that is the Bronx is not the county of New York producing the dough you're talking about. I wouldn't call northern New York a shitty rustbelt region when, in fact, the Bronx is the shittiest borough of New York City. I'll take pristine woodlands and untouched lakes and forests anyday over some dying neighborhoods severly in need of gentrification. It's the SAME thing. The Bronx isn't the county providing New York with the dough, it's MANHATTAN. You're bragging like you have some penthouse in midtown Manhattan overlooking Central Park the way you talk about New York City's per capita income.
The Bronx:

Yeah, you're living the high life alright. :omg:
Wrong buddy boy.

First, you should learn a couple of basic things about the way New York City operates. New York City operates as one entity. There is one mayor, there is one city council. As such, burrough designations mean absolutely NOTHING administratively. The only thing each burrough has is a burrough president, that does absolute didly squat. So, there is no "o Manhattan does this but the Bronx does that." It is New York City as a whole. Period.

Second, you obviously are just spouting steretypes of the bronx. Pristine woods? We've got them in our parks, plus we have the New York Botanical Gardens, right across the streest from the largest zoo in New York City, Central Park. Second, blighted neighborhoods? Someone is not aware obviously of neighborhoods like Riverdale which are among the richest in the entire city, and have one of the most expensive private school in the city. Obviously have never heard that one of the top public schools not only in the city, but in the COUNTRY, is located in the Bronx. Plus, you are also not aware that there is a series of public and private universities ranging from community colleges to medical schools. All in the heart of the Bronx. ;)

Third, what part of averages is so difficult to understand? Of course New York City has poor areas. My parents grew up in the South Bronx and after going to college in the Bronx and then onwards to professional school in schools with Bronx campuses, move out of the South Bronx to the Northern Bronx, which is ENTIRELY different from the South Bronx and sent their children to private school (including having enough money to put me through university at an Ivy League school). But as a WHOLE, once you take into account the poor AND the rich areas, the AVERAGE income in New York City is still $60.000. This translates to about $30.000 in the poorest parts of the city (note, which is still higher than Upstate New York), to about $90.000 in the richest parts. The $20.000 figure, by using your logic, would then be more frightening, as it would suggest that people with incomes of less than $15.000 would be the norm.

Let's take your part of the New York metropolitan area, New Jersey. There are some really shitholes in New Jersey. Patterson, I would not be caught dead in, and Neward is an abyss that was ruined due to highways. Now, are we going to say that "Oh, you can't brag about how wealthy northern New Jersey is because you have parts that are poor." Pretty retarded argument.

So in conclusion, the Bronx is far from being a shit hole that you presume it to be. And even if this were the case, once you familiarize yourself with the fact that New York City is one administrative whole where your burrough means NOTHING, and the concept behind AVERAGES, that Upstate is in fact a rustbelt that is receiving money from sugar daddy metro New York.

OMFG!!!!! THIS IDIOT LIVES IN THE BRONX AND IS BRAGGING OUT HIS AREAS WEALTH AND SUPERIORITY!?!!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I already said: my parents' make a six figure income. How much do your's make? And I went to private schools for all my life, in the Bronx, and went to a prestigious magnet high school, followed by attending an Ivy league University and now am a graduate student at a New York university.

But I tire of your childish insults. I recommend that you go bed my 17 year old child. You have been reported to the mods because of your flagrant violation of the rules prohbiting name calling.

So stuff it and thank the Lord that your region is kept afloat by this Bronx boys' parents and the other well-to-do middle class and wealthy indviduals of metro New York. :)

Let's just use some simple mathematics.

Rochester's average income is about $22.000. Let's for the sake of argument say that Rochester is on the lower end of Upstate income, and that non-Metro New York has an average income of $30.000. And let's just for arguments sake ignore the fact that suburbs have a higher income than the city, and let's just say that metro New York is about $60.000 in percapita income.

Metro New York has 12 million people. Non-metro New York has 4 million people.

12.000.000 x 60.000 = $720 billion.
4.000.000 x 30.000 = $120 billion.

So as a whole, New York State's economy is about $840 billion. A whopping 85% comes from metro New York. Even though Upstate New York using my figures is 25% of the population, it produces a measly 15% of New York State's wealth.

I mean, you'd have to be thick as a doorknob to say that metro-New York is not the one bankrolling this poor excuse for a state. How in Christ's name could the 75% of the state that makes 85% of the state's wealth need money from the 25% of the state that makes 15% of the state's wealth. That's just crazy talk. :crazy2:

Wrong buddy boy.

First, you should learn a couple of basic things about the way New York City operates. New York City operates as one entity. There is one mayor, there is one city council. As such, burrough designations mean absolutely NOTHING administratively. The only thing each burrough has is a burrough president, that does absolute didly squat. So, there is no "o Manhattan does this but the Bronx does that." It is New York City as a whole. Period.

Second, you obviously are just spouting steretypes of the bronx. Pristine woods? We've got them in our parks, plus we have the New York Botanical Gardens, right across the streest from the largest zoo in New York City, Central Park. Second, blighted neighborhoods? Someone is not aware obviously of neighborhoods like Riverdale which are among the richest in the entire city, and have one of the most expensive private school in the city. Obviously have never heard that one of the top public schools not only in the city, but in the COUNTRY, is located in the Bronx. Plus, you are also not aware that there is a series of public and private universities ranging from community colleges to medical schools. All in the heart of the Bronx. ;)

Third, what part of averages is so difficult to understand? Of course New York City has poor areas. My parents grew up in the South Bronx and after going to college in the Bronx and then onwards to professional school in schools with Bronx campuses, move out of the South Bronx to the Northern Bronx, which is ENTIRELY different from the South Bronx and sent their children to private school (including having enough money to put me through university at an Ivy League school). But as a WHOLE, once you take into account the poor AND the rich areas, the AVERAGE income in New York City is still $60.000. This translates to about $30.000 in the poorest parts of the city (note, which is still higher than Upstate New York), to about $90.000 in the richest parts. The $20.000 figure, by using your logic, would then be more frightening, as it would suggest that people with incomes of less than $15.000 would be the norm.

So in conclusion, the Bronx is far from being a shit hole that you presume it to be. And even if this were the case, once you familiarize yourself with the fact that New York City is one administrative whole where your burrough means NOTHING, and the concept behind AVERAGES, that Upstate is in fact a rustbelt that is receiving money from sugar daddy metro New York.
That "New York City works as one" argument does not work when, obviously, different regions of the city average out so that they contribute far more to the GDP than the others. Companies have all of their headquarters in Manhattan, and as a result, the other boroughs benefit ENORMOUSLY from it, and they become cheaper alternatives to living in Manhattan. If you're so proud of your city, then you should be paying the top dollar New York City income taxes that you would acquire if you earned the salary that you brag about. Secondly, New York City's average per capita income is $22,402, while New York state's is $23,389. Sorry, where are you getting these figures from? A fairytale book? Thirdly, I would expect such a reply from a naive New Yorker who thinks they know the world inside and out to brag about "Pristine Woods" in New York City. Those are not woods, my friend. That is merely a large park;)

That "New York City works as one" argument does not work when, obviously, different regions of the city average out so that they contribute far more to the GDP than the others. Companies have all of their headquarters in Manhattan, and as a result, the other boroughs benefit ENORMOUSLY from it, and they become cheaper alternatives to living in Manhattan. If you're so proud of your city, then you should be paying the top dollar New York City income taxes that you would acquire if you earned the salary that you brag about. Secondly, New York City's average per capita income is $22,402, while New York state's is $23,389. Sorry, where are you getting these figures from? A fairytale book? Thirdly, I would expect such a reply from a naive New Yorker who thinks they know the world inside and out to brag about "Pristine Woods" in New York City. Those are not woods, my friend. That is merely a large park;)
I am getting these figures from wikipedia. And I can assure there is now way when the country as a whole is making on average $40.000 a year that one of the wealthiest states would be making $24.000, only 60% of the national average. Some basic logic and common sense please.

I brought up those woods because you insultingly referred to my home as a shit hole. Like I said, I could call New Jersey an equal shit whole because of those that fly the confederate flag in Southern Jersey and the eyesores that are Newark and Patterson. You won't see me doing that that because I display tact, unlike you.

And your argument against my administrative argument is utter tripe. I have already explained to you how New York City is one entity by one simple rule: there is one government. Just like the United States is one entity internationally because it has one government, New York City is one entity in the municipal arena because it has one government. Are we now going to say that "oh, the US is not a wealthy country because it has poor places like Alabama." Your argument is foolish as that hypothetical one.

My parents' don't get a tax break because they live in the Bronx. Their income, because there is ONE NEW YORK CITY income tax, would be the same if they lived on Park Avenue in Manhattan or Park Avenue in the South Bronx. So your implication that they don't is dumb.

I already said: my parents' make a six figure income. How much do your's make? And I went to private schools for all my life, in the Bronx, and went to a prestigious magnet high school, followed by attending an Ivy league University and now am a graduate student at a New York university.

But I tire of your childish insults. I recommend that you go bed my 17 year old child. You have been reported to the mods because of your flagrant violation of the rules prohbiting name calling.

So stuff it and thank the Lord that your region is kept afloat by this Bronx boys' parents and the other well-to-do middle class and wealthy indviduals of metro New York. :)

lol too bad 6 figures doesn't mean jack shit in NYC. My dad alone makes WELL into the 6 figures a year but that is NONE of your business. Rochester's metro per capita income is not 22k you are making up numbers again, its 32k..... why must you lie to make your point? Is it because you don't have one? Must be. This thread's been headed down the drain for a while now and now that Donqui's hijacked it it's only gotten worse..... :lock: :lock: :lock:

LOL, who cares...we make more than both of you, New York... :jk:

But this fight is getting the thread way off track. This is about making new states, not about infighting in NYS. If it seems so bad, probably NYC and Upstate should just divide, to make everyone happy.

lol too bad 6 figures doesn't mean jack shit in NYC. My dad alone makes WELL into the 6 figures a year but that is NONE of your business. Rochester's metro per capita income is not 22k you are making up numbers again, its 32k..... why must you lie to make your point? Is it because you don't have one? Must be. This thread's been headed down the drain for a while now and now that Donqui's hijacked it it's only gotten worse..... :lock: :lock: :lock:
You are the one calling me an idiot and an ass, and I am the one that made it worse?

Six figures is six figures baby. If you honest think that you would be poor in New York City making $100.000 a year, then, I recommend you get out of suburbia and live in the real world like the rest of us adults.

I got my percapita income of Rochester based on Monroe County, which according to the US Census via Wikipedia, is a whopping $22.000.

I am beginning to doubt whethere your adolscent frame of mind is more reminiscent of a pimply 14 year old and not that of one who is going to have the responsibility of choosing my elected leaders.

Mill always did argue that the smartest should have two votes. I can see why. :D

From your beloved Wikipedia:
New York City Compared
2004 Census Estimate NY City NY State United States
Total population 8,168,338 19,254,630 288,368,698
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 +9.4% +5.5% +13.1%
Population density 26,402.9/mi² 401.9/mi² 79.6/mi²
Median household income (1999) $38,293 $43,393 $41,994
Per capita income $22,402 $23,389 $21,587
Bachelor's degree or higher 27% 27% 24%
Foreign born 36% 20% 11%
White 45% 68% 75%
Black 27% 16% 12%
Hispanic 27% 15% 13%
Asian 10% 6% 4%

2. Go ahead. Make fun of New Jersey all you want....although I haven't seen too many confederate flags in South Jersey(wtf? They're not hicks..)..I actually loathe Northern New Jersey with a passion, which is why I added a nice little note in my location avatar thing. I think Northern New Jersey is one of the last places in the United States I would like to live, and I plan to move back to Pennsylvania soon, so that point is moot, because I agree with you:)
Really, I'm not going to argue the New York City as one entity thing again with you, because you can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink;)

From your beloved Wikipedia:
New York City Compared
2004 Census Estimate NY City NY State United States
Total population 8,168,338 19,254,630 288,368,698
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 +9.4% +5.5% +13.1%
Population density 26,402.9/mi² 401.9/mi² 79.6/mi²
Median household income (1999) $38,293 $43,393 $41,994
Per capita income $22,402 $23,389 $21,587
Bachelor's degree or higher 27% 27% 24%
Foreign born 36% 20% 11%
White 45% 68% 75%
Black 27% 16% 12%
Hispanic 27% 15% 13%
Asian 10% 6% 4%

2. Go ahead. Make fun of New Jersey all you want....although I haven't seen too many confederate flags in South Jersey(wtf? They're not hicks..)..I actually loathe Northern New Jersey with a passion, which is why I added a nice little note in my location avatar thing. I think Northern New Jersey is one of the last places in the United States I would like to live, and I plan to move back to Pennsylvania soon, so that point is moot, because I agree with you:)
Really, I'm not going to argue the New York City as one entity thing again with you, because you can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink;)
Not too many confederate flags? For someone who has Southern New Jersey in his neck of the woods, I would say one is too many. ;)

New York City has an estimated gross metropolitan product of nearly $500 billion within the city limits, larger than the GDP of Switzerland and nearly equaling that of Russia. If it were a nation the city would have the 17th largest economy in the world, and at $59,000 per person, New York would have the second highest per capita GDP after Luxembourg. [17]
This is the source cited: http://www.usmayors.org/74thWinterMeeting/metroeconreport_January2006.pdf

Perhaps we are starting to mix the concept of economic production versus actual take-home salaries? :dunno:

You are the one calling me an idiot and ass, and I am the one that made it worse?

Six figures is six figures baby. If you honest think that you would be poor in New York City making $100.000 a year, then, I recommend you get out of suburbia and live in the real world like the rest of us adults.

I got my percapita income of Rochester based on Monroe County, which according to the US Census via Wikipedia, is a whopping $22.000.

I am beginning to dought whethere your adolscent frame of mind is more reminiscent of a pimply 14 year old and not that of one whow is going to have the responsibility of choosing my elected leaders.

Mill always did argue that the smartest should have two votes. I can see why. :D


LOL You get your stats from Wikipedia?!?!!? The online encyclopedia where anyone can write the definitions and explanations of whatever they want? I could go in to that page and say that Monroe County's per capita income was 1,000,000,000,000 if I wanted. The census bureau says 32k, I'm goin' with them.

LOL You get your stats from Wikipedia?!?!!? The online encyclopedia where anyone can write the definitions and explanations of whatever they want? I could go in to that page and say that Monroe County's per capita income was 1,000,000,000,000 if I wanted. The census bureau says 32k, I'm goin' with them.
They are via the US Census and other reputable sources ;)

PS: I would appreciate an apology for your juvenile name calling. it was absolutely uncalled for and unbecoming someone as old as your are.

omg... again, this is from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.... http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm

omg... again, this is from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.... http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm
Fine, let's use that data: Monroe is at about $30.000 and metropolitan New York is at about $40.000

$40.000 x 12.000.000 = $480 billion
$30.000 x 4.000.000 = $120 billion

I re-iterate: Why would the 75% of New York State residents that make 80% of our state's salaried income need to be subsidized by the 25% of Rust-belt land that make 20% of the State's salaried income.

Either way we slice it, metro New York pays for New York State! :crazy:

We are now arguing whethere the sky is baby blue or marine aqua. :laugh:

PS: Still waiting for that apology. ;)

They are via the US Census and other reputable sources ;)

PER CAPITA INCOME
New York City:
Per capita income (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Estimate
25,751

U.S.
24,020

Bronx:
Per capita income (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Estimate
15,235
U.S.
24,020

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US3651000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C16000US3651000&_street=&_county=New+York+City&_cityTown=New+York+City&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US36005&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C05000US36005&_street=&_county=bronx&_cityTown=bronx&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
There ya go buddy, a reputable source for ya;)

PER CAPITA INCOME
New York City:
Per capita income (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Estimate
25,751

U.S.
24,020

Bronx:
Per capita income (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Estimate
15,235
U.S.
24,020

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US3651000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C16000US3651000&_street=&_county=New+York+City&_cityTown=New+York+City&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US36005&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C05000US36005&_street=&_county=bronx&_cityTown=bronx&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
There ya go buddy, a reputable source for ya;)
I smell something fishy in all of our analasees, given that our economy is worth about $10-11 trillion dollars, which means a percapita production of about $35.000.

there is simply no way that New York State, being one fo the wealthiest states in the Union, would be making only 60% of the national per capita income. Simply impossible. This means that we are not using comparable indicators.

All I see on that site is 1999 adjusted dollars, so, where are you getting your 2004 figures? :?

Edit: I see it now. :doh:

These are the data I get looking at that same site:

Median household income Rochester: (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3663000&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=onv) 27,123

Median household income for New York City: (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3651000&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on) 38,293

This is going to be hard to compare. But New York City itself, even with its poor neighborhoods, still has about 40% higher average income than Rochester. This is excluding our INCREDIBLY wealthy suburbs as well.

No matter you slice it, there is now way that one part of the state that makes only 2/3 what another part of the state makes is going to be the one giving subsidies. Period.

based on this site, I think that this CLEARLY illustrates the lecherousness that is Upstate New York:

My $60.000 figure was being clouded by the fact that New York is infact corporate headquarters for many companies. However, this only heightens the realization that New York City's economy supports the broke one of Upstate New York, as these taxes, while being based in New York City, benefit all New Yorkers. So even though a publishing firm has nothing to do with say Syracuse, Syracuse still gets to benefit from New York City.

But let's talk about personal income; besides, this is the one that affects us all. The first figure is 2002, then 2003, then 2004.

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (MSA) 31,498 32,453 33,950
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (MSA) 28,400 29,477 31,006
Rochester, NY (MSA) 30,399 30,814 32,303
Syracuse, NY (MSA) 27,836 28,660 29,944
Utica-Rome, NY (MSA)24,043 24,570 25,857

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 40,281 40,679 43,277
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm

Differente measures, different numbers, the same reality: metro new York is a whopping 40% richer than upstate New York. There is absolutely no way that metro-New York State gets subsidized by Upstate. Upstate is poorer! If you think that 40% is not a lot, let me tell you where Jackson Mississippi stands: $29.000 a year. So, of the five major upstate metropolitan areas, three of them are poorer than a metropolitan area located in the poorest state in the union. So not only is Upstate is poorer, but if its battling Mississippi for numbers, we may even say that it is poor.

So using round numbers:

12.000.000 x 40.000 = $480 billion
4.000 x 30.000 = $120 billion

We as 75% of the population of New York State make up 80% of this state's salaried income. Correspondingly, Upstate, represents 25% of the state's economy but only contributed 20% of the state's salaried income.

So, bringing the thread back on topic, time to let the leaches go and give ourselves the independence from Albany and the cripple that we need. :)

This thread has gotten hilarious. I was laughing so hard at the last 2 pages.
You guys crack me up. :rofl:

should take Puerto Rico and get rid of North Dakota. That way we wouldn't have to change all the flags and Puerto Ricans would finally have to pay taxes. :)

Fine, let's use that data: Monroe is at about $30.000 and metropolitan New York is at about $40.000

$40.000 x 12.000.000 = $480 billion
$30.000 x 4.000.000 = $120 billion

I re-iterate: Why would the 75% of New York State residents that make 80% of our state's salaried income need to be subsidized by the 25% of Rust-belt land that make 20% of the State's salaried income.

Either way we slice it, metro New York pays for New York State! :crazy:

We are now arguing whethere the sky is baby blue or marine aqua. :laugh:

PS: Still waiting for that apology. ;)

Holy Crap. I mean, what part of NOBODY SAYS THAT UPSTATE NEW YORK IS SUBSIDZING NEW YORK CITY don't you understand? You just really don't get it do you? You keep saying that because making that my point (which it is not) is the only way you can "prove me wrong". Because you can't. Because metro New York does control Albany and therefore dictate the entire state's policies. They DO demand more programs and services that the WHOLE state is taxed for.... a STATE WIDE tax on. That is NOT saying that Upstate subsizes downstate. Yes, NYC generates more of the tax revenue, but they also create the demand for more of that tax revenue. But I digress, triadcat is right, and I also said it a while ago..... :lock: :lock: :lock:

^^

Oh God, relax. We're just sick of sending our money down to fund NYC's social programs for your millions of poor people, and we're sick of having to pay more in taxes that companies up here can't afford which only global companies in NYC can. If you don't mind a split then I don't, I'm sick of hearing the Capitol of World complain about sending more money our way that we don't get. We really can't take Albany in this hypothetical split because we want to get rid of the symbol of NYS government dysfunction.

Obviously the state isn't going to split, the only real thing that might happen would be NYC alone seceding and becoming an independent city like D.C. This means that NYC can fend for itself and won't have all the state money to fall back on to fund their current state mandating social programs.
Come back to me when you decide to act like an adult ROCguy. And hopefully one day Upstate New York will start looking more like downstate New York and less like Mississippi ;)

PS: Rustbelts generally vote Democrat. In New York we have a Republican mayor, and Metro New York is the reason why Republicans have been in State control for over a decade. ;) So perhaps you are the ones voting for these programs as well to alleviate Mississippi-esque levels of poverty.

http://www.polidata.org/maps/cy04p1cr.gif

Look at dem blue tax-loving little havens in New York. Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, New York. Upstate loves those entitlement programs just as much as Downstate does. As you should: you need them.

Funny what this discussion transformed into.

My city appears in that map...Like the blue spot...

Wow...this thread has gone wild.

But, since it's already all messed up, can someone answer this question:

Since massachussets is all heavily democratic (looks all blue on the map), how did they end up with a conservative, Republican governor? Just curious...Doesn't seem logical...

It seems everyone here has forgotten the classical method of ading states to the Union, conquest, pillage, and purchase. With this in mind, I would recomend for possible statehood.....

1. British Columbia.
2. Alberta....love those tar sands.
3. Annex Yukon to Alaska.
4. Baja California...both norte y sol.
5. Cuba
6. Dominican Republic
7. Bahamas.
8. Newfoundland...Canada doesn't like them anyhow.
9. Panama...take back the canal and everything else.
10. Belize...at least they already speak English
11. Jamaica
12. Sonora...actually once offered to us by the Mexican government if we would promise to stop letting our troops cross the international border without permission. We turned it down. Won't make that mistake again.
13. Ireland...There are a lot more Irish Americans than Irish Irishmen. Might as well take the whole lot before the next famine.
14. Eastern Siberia...Russia doesn't use it anyway and it would make a good set with Alaska.

Wow...this thread has gone wild.

But, since it's already all messed up, can someone answer this question:

Since massachussets is all heavily democratic (looks all blue on the map), how did they end up with a conservative, Republican governor? Just curious...Doesn't seem logical...
It's a northeastern phenomenon.

We are not knee jerk liberals like California is stereotyped to be. Nationally, because the Republican Party tends to be too conservative for our tastes, we almost always vote Democrat. However, our Republicans are very moderate, and are more liberal than Jesusland Democrats. Our Republican mayor has already come out and said that for example he supports gay marriage.

The Democrats, like all parties that are incumbent, got soft. We punished them by voting Republicans into state office.

On a related note, in the New Yorker, it was mentioned that New Yor in particular would be fertile ground for a new party. Not exactly centrist, but one that essentially combines Democrat liberalism in social issues with Republican emphasis on small government.

I hope this makes sense...

Wow...this thread has gone wild.

But, since it's already all messed up, can someone answer this question:

Since massachussets is all heavily democratic (looks all blue on the map), how did they end up with a conservative, Republican governor? Just curious...Doesn't seem logical...

The Mass. governor is republican, but not really conservative. He did oppose gay marriage, but also is trying to make the whole state have universal health care, which is not conservative at all.

MA, CT, NY and RI all are liberal blue states. But all four have Republican governors (they also hold 3 of the 5 Rep seats in CT). But they all are moderate, even liberal by national republican standards.

All except for NW Connecticut, CT is covered by blue!

^^


Come back to me when you decide to act like an adult ROCguy. And hopefully one day Upstate New York will start looking more like downstate New York and less like Mississippi ;)

PS: Rustbelts generally vote Democrat. In New York we have a Republican mayor, and Metro New York is the reason why Republicans have been in State control for over a decade. ;) So perhaps you are the ones voting for these programs as well to alleviate Mississippi-esque levels of poverty.

You really are pathetic. The only part of Upstate NY that was ever considered part of the Rustbelt was the Buffalo area and that was 30 years ago. The area is TRYING to have a resurgence but the unbelievable tax burden placed on it by the downstate conrolled government makes it very difficult. You've never even BEEN upstate so you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, and again, REALLY need some insight before you run your mouth and diss an entire region you know jack shit about. Parties make no difference in the New York politics in all reality. Pataki is probably more fiscaly liberal than most democratic governeres in other states.

Isn't the ignore function great?!

:happy:

On a related note, in the New Yorker, it was mentioned that New Yor in particular would be fertile ground for a new party. Not exactly centrist, but one that essentially combines Democrat liberalism in social issues with Republican emphasis on small government.

I hope this makes sense...

That is essentially Libertarianism.........socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've heard that Oregon and New Hampshire are more "Libertarian" than anything else.

That is essentialy Libertarianism.........socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've heard that Oregon and New Hampshire are more "Libertarian" than anything else.
Yes and no. This party would be fiscially conservative, but not "to hell with society, me me me me" that the Libertarian party in its current incarnation.

I say fiscally conservative in the "let's keep people off of welfare kindaway." I think this "Purple Party" that the New Yorker has coined it as (purple being the color you get when you mix red and blue :D) would still want some more bits of social net like universal healthcare, but would not roll back welfare reform for example.