Hypothetical Question?

Question

Let's pretend like the U.S. is divided down the center. The western half is run by progressive Democrats, the eastern half is run by conservative Republicans. Those who fall in-between will have to make a choice as to which side to pick (sorry). We set up borders and allow free trade, but nobody is allowed to immigrate permanently to the other side.

The western side will have socialized health care, and all government operated programs that they wish. The conservatives will opt to have their federal government to give them protection (paid through taxation), but nothing else. On the eastern side, most decisions will be made by states or municipalities as voted on by the residents. This includes schools, social programs, etc.

Trade between the two entities is allowed, as it is now.

In 30 years time, who do you think will fare better, and why?

Dana, my Q & A are open. Check them out. I pick as many liberals for best answer as I do conservatives. I'm fair and not biased. :)

Answer 1

I've thought of that in terms of California . . .

I think that the east would fare far better, since the west would be creating a land devoid of responsibility and initiative.

OK would go where the guns are allowed.

The real solution is going to be found in a return to state power, and federal non-interference. AND a refreshed Congress.

Answer 2

It would be a disaster for the Eastern people that are not rich. And lots of republicans are not. The ones whose savings are wiped out by financial disaster or illness would be SOL. The rest of the east would let them die. Probably in the long run only the very rich would survive. On the other side, by not having as much the west would figure out how to conserve and come up with better technology because they have to. The biggest problem would be the crime on the west side. They couldn't afford the protection such as rich folks body guards.

Answer 3

The western side sounds like Canada to me. They are doing better, so I think the western side. I also think that the Eastern side will see a lot more frustration because of the tight security, but that they will be hated around the world for their policies and will have more terror attacks though security is tight. you can put up the walls, but bully the world and they will retaliate. The western side would be respected around the world, and our kids would be so much smarter than yours without all the standardized testing.

Answer 4

You (and most of the answers above me) have fallen for the mistaken notion that Democrats spend and Republicans don't. This fallacy is based on FDR and the programs he initiated to get us out of the depression. However since then, the presidents who spent the most are George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Clinton actually got the budget under control and even had a surplus for a few years. He also limited welfare spending, something a Republican could never do. During Bush's first term while congress was controlled by the Republicans, there was an implicit deal that congress would support all of the president's ideas, as long as he never vetoed any of the worthless pork barrel programs that were shoved into every bill. It wasn't the democrats who wanted to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. And of course, not one veto during his first term.

So while your question is interesting, I think you are a little bit off in thinking that the east won't have any social programs, and the west won't have a strong defense. And probably neither one will be appreciably "better" in 30 years, they'll just be different.

Answer 5

West Coast will rule the East Coast will be no different than a POW camp with the Mayberry Machiavelli Pseudochristian Virtuecrats obsessing over everyone's genitalia and forced religious indoctrination into the church of the almighty dollar sign

Answer 6

let me guess
-the Republicans will say that their side would do better.
-the Democrats will say that their side would do better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California is by majority a liberal state - we have the biggest and baddest economy of all the states. Even the Texas economy when they had oil didn't come close to ours.
If the liberal state of California was a country we would have a top 10 economy world wide. (about 7th in the world)
Our hospitals treat more illegals than any other state and we have more illegals in our schools than any other state but still our economy kicks your states (any state) butt.
But what do we know about a strong economy - we are just a bunch of lazy moon-bats right ? Just a bunch of Commies who don't really love Capitalism. We work our asses off for a better life just so we can give it all away - is that it ?

Lots of sources on how our liberal ways keep us down - whats your states excuse ?

Answer 7

First you assume there are absolutes with human beings. That doesn't work. That is why Communism doesn't work. It makes the same assumptions. In the Eastern side of your example the local property and sales taxes will be super high or they will be a third world country. Your example in the West, while they may be healthier than their Eastern counter parts they will be bogged down with mandates from the federal government and no way to pay for them. What we need is a nice balance of both systems. Realizing that different people will have different needs at different times a combination will cover one from cradle to grave to provide the best possible quality of life.

Answer 8

So the Eastern side would look like the US pre 1929?

Because I think it currently looks kind of like pre 1929, only the company store has been replaced by government.

Personally, I wouldn't mind taking my chances with the company store.

Answer 9

i think we got screwed by getting the eastern half of the us. geographically speaking, the advantages are better on the west coast. i dont know, i will have to think on it. after all, if we had control of calif, its the 7th largest economy in the world with moderate climate, oil, lumber, farming...hmmm, but they are in need of water and the west is basically a desert. the rocky mountains provide a good defense i suppose from either side. then again, calif has mexico to feed......the libs will take care of each and every one of them. they will be bankrupt in 30 years of paying everyones way, taxes will be very high to pay for all of their social programs for drug addicts, aliens, and single families with many babies. have to think. sorry.

Answer 10

It would be the fall of the iron curtain part deux

At some point the west would have to put up a fence to keep people in, you see, for all of the idiots who say they like or want socialism, once they experience it in all of its reality and ugliness they will be pleading from freedom.

Don't you find it funny that for all of the socialist wannabes not a single one is leaving the US, perhaps they just seek to tear down the country and are using socialism as a guise to do so.