S. Maturin wrote:
1/3 of the US Military?! I would like to see some numbers about some claims you have made.
OK, so maybe 1/3 was an exaggeration. Although, I have to say it's not even close to your exaggerations so far, so par for the course. But I did have a point and maybe the exaggeration was a distraction.
So let me make the point without the exaggeration...
Fact: in 2015 California provided $405 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The next largest contribution was from Texas at only $279 billion... This is the money that funds the U.S. military BTW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_stateIf that isn't enough, California also provides the largest number of enlistees to the U.S. military... In 2013 California provided 18,987 enlisted personnel. The next highest number is 16,078 from Texas.
http://www.aei.org/publication/us-military-enlistment-rates-by-state-a-texas-sized-difference/So the point is, California is the biggest provider to the U.S. military both in terms of personnel and funding. Not to mention a LOT of military technology comes from California. So it's a bit idiotic to suggest that California would loose all that military might. If anything California would take the largest share of it and the remaining U.S. would see a significant loss.
S. Maturin wrote:
There is no way in hell CA could exist for any length of time- months, maybe?- without the military of the USA. It would never be able to raise and support a military capable of even fending off a Mexican move let alone a determined invasion from a real military power.
Get real... You seem to have this delusion where you think the only reason why we aren't being invaded on all sides is because of the size of our military. That's just retarded. I don't see anyone attacking Canada, do you? And yet Canada only has a population of 36.5 billion where California as a population of 39.1 billion. Canada only has a GDP of 1.79 trillion where California has a GDP of 2.31 trillion. So California can easily afford more military than Canada.
Something else to consider... The U.S. military is way overblown with a budget that surpasses the next eight military budgets in the world combined, including Russia and China.
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database: (in $ billions)
US... 611.2
China... 215.7
Russia... 69.2
Saudi Arabia .. 63.7
India... 55.9
France... 55.7
UK... 48.3
Japan... 46.1
Germany... 41.1
If California stopped funding the federal government, we would save $405 billion and could well afford to spend more on defense than ANY of our allies are currently spending and it's worth pointing out that any of these countries are more than capable of defending themselves. The reason why we spend so much more isn't because defense requires it but because the investors in our military-industrial complex want dividends. It's not a matter of defense, it's a matter of business.
So your assertion that California wouldn't last more than a month is an exaggeration to say the least.
Something else to consider...
Four of the six ports that connect the U.S. Interstate system to the Pacific Rim are in California. Almost all Chinese exports go to California, 40% of ALL imports to the U.S. come through the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. If you understood how liberalism changed the world, you would know that fighting over land resources is largely a thing of the past and that in this 21st century so far, open markets and fluid transactions are the prize. Countries like Mexico and China have more to gain by trading with California than taking it over. One of the few things Bush said that made any sense is that developed democracies don't fight wars against each other. He was basically pointing out the new reality of a global market system.
So, you got your head in the sand if you still think California depends on the U.S. military to avoid invasion.
As for the economy; How about some state numbers as to income and expenditures? I think SanFran could sink the rest of CA economically.
[/quote]
Says the guy with out any numbers...
So in 2016, California spent $514.2 billion (more than any other state, which is all people like you want to hear.) But California also had more income than any other state and in that same year the Gross State Product for California was $2,602.7 billion. In fact, California actually ranks #7 in terms of economic growth rate (2.4%) compared to a state like Texas which has a current growth rate of only 0.9%
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2016bF0GAnything else?
S. Maturin wrote:
I do believe you are a dreamer and quite self-disillusioned in much of what you profess.
I think you're the dreamer... It's pretty clear that I can back up my statements where you don't even make the attempt.