Denmark proposes to purchase California?
As a counter to President Trump’s offer to purchase the Danish-owned island of Greenland (the largest in the world), Denmark has launched a campaign to acquire California for $1 trillion dollars.
Before giving any consideration to the proposal offer, we first have to recognize that the Danes’ offer is not even sufficient to pay off California’s astounding $1.6 trillion debt – and a current budget deficit of $28 billion. The Danes would have to assume the debt in addition to coughing up that $1 trillion – and figure out how to pay off the annual deficit.
That seems like a heavy life for a nation with a total annual budget of 345,269 DKK. That is approximately 50 billion USD – slightly less than the annual budget of Connecticut. While there is a certain appeal in selling off California, the numbers do not seem to work.
The taxpayers of the remaining 49 states (discounting the possible admission of Canada) would save billions of dollars each year. The State of California receives more than $200 billion in federal funds. And that is just a portion of the federal money received by individuals – including Social Security ($150 billion), welfare ($20 billion), Medicare ($80 billion) and Medicaid ($150 billion).
The Danes have addressed one of the sticky points. California is the home of the iconic American institution — Disneyland. They said it would be renamed Hans Christian Andersenland. Donald Duck would presumably be replaced by the Ugly Duckling, Snow White with the Snow Queen and Tinkerbell with Thumbelina.
Ceding California to the Kingdom of Denmark would be beneficial to that cadre of actors who have threatened (repeatedly in some cases) to move out of America because of President Trump. They would not have to pack a bag to fulfill their repetitious promises.
The list includes Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi, who have already moved to the United Kingdom; misnamed America Ferrera, who is checking out schools in the UK for a future move; and the UK also picked up Sophie Truner.
Eva Longoria now splits her time between Spain and Mexico. Barbara Streisand told Stephen Colbert she would leave the U.S. if Trump got elected, but she has not yet called in the movers. (Perhaps it was just one of those bs threats believing he would not win). Alec Baldwin is another who has made idle threats of expatriating. If he had kept his promise the first time, that poor videographer he shot might still be alive.
Cher promised to leave after Trump won in 2016. She has now reiterated that promise. I am dubious. Sharon Stone said she is planning to leave. Laverne Cox is heading to Europe or the Caribbean. And the list goes on.
If Denmark cannot swing the deal financially, perhaps there is another alternative. Would a swap of California with Greenland work? As a direct cash on the barrelhead deal, it would not — but there are other ways to value the deal.
One of the factors is the size of the population. America would theoretically shed an immediate 40 million citizens and pick up a mere 57,000 Greenlanders. (Yep! That is the official population of Greenland.) Of course, it is likely that millions of current California residents would migrate across the border to live in America. For the most part, these would be people who love America. All those who – like the few celebrities referenced above – had been disdainful of America under Trump would get to reside in a left-wing quasi socialist state. Sounds like a win-win.
With $1 trillion dollars, the Danes could pay each person in California $25,000 to vote “yes” on a referendum in favor of joining the Kingdom of Denmark – or $50,000 per person for a majority to vote yes on a referendum to secede from the American union.
In terms of Greenland, it would only take $1.4 billion to pay every resident of Greenland $25,000 to vote in favor of statehood with America – or only $700,000 to get a majority. In fact, it could cost the American taxpayers nothing at all since any one of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg could easily foot the bill. It is not even a rounding error on their books.
If such a deal could be consummated, America would be picking up a vast land (836,000 square miles) with enormous critical resources and very few people (and virtually none on welfare). At the same time, the U.S. would surrender as much smaller piece of land (164,000 square miles) with relatively few natural resources (we already sucked the gold out of the Golden State), endless natural catastrophes and a large population– millions of whom are on welfare and others homeless on the streets. Even if some Greenlanders were homeless, they would not be living on the streets. Greenland is not exactly a green land.
Some say the offer from Denmark is just a joke, but more than 200,000 Danes (and others) have signed a petition in support of the campaign to “make California Great Again.” Unfortunately, the fundraising effort is short by approximately … $1 trillion. Perhaps a swap of Greenland for either Los Angeles or San Francisco would work – would be more equitable.
If a deal were to succeed, however, what next? New York City for Gaza? After all, turning Gaza into the Riveria of the Middle East would be a lot easier and less expensive than rebuilding Los Angeles and San Francisco after the big one hits.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to swapping California for Greenland is that Mexico has first dibs on Golden State. After all, it was theirs not that long ago.
And if you think all this is silliness, keep in mind that the Palestinians want Israel back, Chinese President Xi wants Taiwan back and Russian President Putin wants Ukraine back – maybe even Alaska.
Being part of the Kingdom of Denmark is not such a bad idea. At least they have a great sense of humor.
So, there ‘tis.
The best deal for us would be to trade California and all of its problems for Greenland.
We should give California away and say good riddance
Start a bidding war? But the liberals have to go with it…
100%! Being free of its $625 billion dollar debt alone would be great.
What ever happened to unification? Didn’t even get off the blocks.
If we are going to succeed, we need to be we. Not us and them as the old Pink Floyd song describes. Larry, Robert, Dan-o, and Joey, exemplifies the spirit that will destroy us. And them. Robert wants to trade CA for Greenland. CA is our largest State economy with the largest GDP in the land. It’s about 15% of the national GDP. Robert and Dan suggest that the US can do without 15% of it’s production, taxes, and more. Can Robert do that in his own life? Just give up 15%. And in return, he will get a GDP of a couple billion instead of 4 trillion. Good deal?
Joe specifies getting rid of liberals, knowing that CA is 25% Republican. If Joe had his way, we would get rid of basically half of America. Does he think America will be better for that?
Larry spins his tale with false facts on the economy of all this; pretty funny given he has an econ degree. He states: “The taxpayers of the remaining 49 states (discounting the possible admission of Canada) would save billions of dollars each year. The State of California receives more than $200 billion in federal funds. And that is just a portion of the federal money received by individuals – including Social Security ($150 billion), welfare ($20 billion), Medicare ($80 billion) and Medicaid ($150 billion).
California is a net-giver, not taker, of Federal taxes. His claim they are a drain is bogus, economically speaking. If you want the takers, try Virginia, West Virginia, and New Mexico followed by the entire South. Using Larry’s faker-taker model, let the South succeed and take Virginia with you.
He then states the federal funds drain of Social Security knowing full well that SS is a sinking fund, insurance, Ponzi scheme, whatever, where YOU deposit the money to be dolled back out to you IF you reach age 62, or 65 if you wait. It’s not Federal Funds, it’s your deposits being returned. Because of the insurance elements, there is the chance, like Larry, that you might get more than you put in. A few folks, like Larry, are takers, but many die earlier and end up being givers. BUT the Federal Government has never spent an income tax dollar it received on Social Security. IT is self-funded by us, and them, heh heh. FYI-between 10-15% of us die without getting a single SS dollar. 100% of the undocumented paying into SS never get a dollar. And for those of us, like Larry, get SS, Medicare is similar, but not at 100%; approximately 60% is funded by the General Fund making half-assed Larry, half-right on this one. But he’s half wrong too.
On Social Security, many do not take out what they put in, but many, like Larry, take out more than they put in. He’s still only half right. Medicare, at a 60% deficit is a total you get more than you put in for every State in the Union, not just California. So, maybe focus on getting rid of old-person States, again, pointing us to Florida as numero uno.
The author is thoroughly BUSTED, his theory of California being a taker destroyed, and he is left with little to base his baseless theory on, economically speaking. And he misses totally that California is the economic engine that drives the nation, the number one economy, almost larger than the next two states combined —- Texas and Florida. If we let the RED taker States of the South go, we get rid of Texas and Florida so Larry get’s his $$$ nut that way too.
But let’s be blunt. Was your life really better off under Trump1? Was it that much worse under Biden? Do you really expect that your life will magically change in the next four years? Do you think gutting government will improve your lifestyle and economic standing? Or by taxing products you buy at 25% will make your richer? Where were all those Trump1 factories, and do you really expect to work in one over the next four years? Or maybe you will have to take an immigrant’s job? Do you really think by getting rid of half the people in this country, that it will be milk and honey for you forever in the future?
Twenty years ago we did not hate each other and we worked together, not always perfectly, but we got things done. Now we focus on ripping things apart, throwing things out, and removing all that has a different idea. Do we really need autocracy to unify us and is that really the unification you are searching for?
I spell my name: danger. And my aim is truth.
Frank Danger … So typical of an uptight anal retentive liberal. No sense of humor. And as far a truth is concerned your aim is so bad that you mostly wind up shooting yourself in the foot.
Larry: as usual, no facts, no evidence, just more spew. It becomes you.
Glad that you cannot refute anything I said.
“Twenty years ago we did not hate each other and we worked together, not always perfectly, but we got things done. Now we focus on ripping things apart, throwing things out, and removing all that has a different idea. Do we really need autocracy to unify us and is that really the unification you are searching for?”
And Larry is the a prime example. He thinks it is all a joke putting pain in strangers for his own gratifications.