We The People, your voice in our Government

Given the sheer cost of separating from the Union, not to mention the precedent that Lincoln set, I don't foresee any states seceding anytime soon.
 
Patriot said:
Given the sheer cost of separating from the Union, not to mention the precedent that Lincoln set, I don't foresee any states seceding anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Lincoln didn't set the precedent for attacking US states that succeeded. Fort Sumter, a Union fort, was attacked by Confederate forces, which started the Civil War.

Regardless, no state is going to succeed. Just because people didn't get what they want doesn't mean they get to quit and walk away. These petitions happen after every close election and these debates have gone on since the end of the Revolution. This isn't the end guys, things are not permanent.
 
What Stc said.

Not that petitions are pointless or stupid, but how hard is it to get people to sign a petition on the internet? They don't carry the weight people think they do.

I personally like seeing one large nation instead of 50 small vulnerable ones. This won't happen anytime soon, and hopefully it never will.
 
I would fight (aka take up arms) to keep the USA together. The states that want to leave suck more money in than they push up. In other words, there is no way if those tax dollars dried up would all the people on welfare and food stamps stand for it. It's a sad state (no pun intended), but it's the way it is. We need to work together to figure out solutions to the economy, not take our ball and go home.

Check out Virginia here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

A negative contribution means they spend more federal dollars and state dollars than they can sustain. And they want to secede? o_O Same with Alaska. If anyone could successfully secede it could be one of those blue states that generate all the money the rest of us are living off of.

More fun stuff: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
 
Last edited:
Alaska has seemingly been one of those bizarre states crazy people move to to get away from "big brother" watching them, ultraconservatives moving in to be all independent, or straight up hippies coming in to be closer to nature. The only "normal" people I tend to find in abundance are the ones either tied to the military stationed here, or working for the oil companies. One would think that because of this we would be a highly independent state actively trying to avoid federal funding at nearly all cost. We *do* have the resources to make it just fine on our own as a state, and could feasibly do so... but once the drug called federal funding set in, there's not going to be any breaking free or moving toward the positive anytime soon...
 
Lloren said:
I would fight (aka take up arms) to keep the USA together. The states that want to leave suck more money in than they push up. In other words, there is no way if those tax dollars dried up would all the people on welfare and food stamps stand for it. It's a sad state (no pun intended), but it's the way it is. We need to work together to figure out solutions to the economy, not take our ball and go home.
Click to expand...

Yup if we fall to balance the budget before we go bankrupt we will have riots just like Greece and England to look forward to. If we had riots with Rodney King I expect they will pale comparatively considering it's the same demographic. Of course I don't see Obama being the stern parent and doing the cuts he'll probably pass it to some other schmoe to be vilified.

Lloren said:
Check out Virginia here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

A negative contribution means they spend more federal dollars and state dollars than they can sustain. And they want to secede? o_O Same with Alaska. If anyone could successfully secede it could be one of those blue states that generate all the money the rest of us are living off of.

More fun stuff: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
Click to expand...

I don't think how much a state takes from the Government is the only factor in it's economic health. If I understand that chart right both California and Texas take little but California and Texas are worlds apart in fiscal health. Also those Alaskans and their annual 1000 dollars of oil money to every resident could probably afford to leave if they would give things like that up.

Actually prior to the election, or this petition talk, I was already in favor of Texas succession but it's not going to happen and as Christians we should probably stay to help. I just identify with being a Texan over being an American.
 
Last edited:
The Mighty Gerbil said:
Yup if we fall to balance the budget before we go bankrupt we will have riots just like Greece and England to look forward to. If we had riots with Rodney King I expect they will pale comparatively considering it's the same demographic. Of course I don't see Obama being the stern parent and doing the cuts he'll probably pass it to some other schmoe to be vilified.

I don't think how much a state takes from the Government is the only factor in it's economic health. If I understand that chart right both California and Texas take little but California and Texas are worlds apart in fiscal health. Also those Alaskans and their annual 1000 dollars of oil money to every resident could probably afford to leave if they would give things like that up.

Actually prior to the election, or this petition talk, I was already in favor of Texas succession but it's not going to happen and as Christians we should probably stay to help. I just identify with being a Texan over being an American.
Click to expand...

What Lloren was saying is that most of the states that want to secede are mostly made up of states that could not possibly survive on their own without additional funding from another source (read that as those states would fail miserably without their federally-issued social security check).

Also, prior to the financial crash, California was ranked as high as the 4th largest economy, not in the US, but in the world (here's info from 1995) - Texas was not. Better economies translate into higher standards of living. Put another way, if you have a Mercedes and a Chevy, and both have identical damage, of course the Mercedes will cost more to fix than the Chevy. So of course California has more debt than Texas; Texas was never a Mercedes.

Edit: I think it's funny that all of those petitions regarding "X-state leave the Union to form it's own NEW government" use the same style of writing :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
What Lloren was saying is that most of the states that want to secede are mostly made up of states that could not possibly survive on their own without additional funding from another source (read that as those states would fail miserably without their federally-issued social security check).

Also, prior to the financial crash, California was ranked as high as the 4th largest economy, not in the US, but in the world (here's info from 1995) - Texas was not. Better economies translate into higher standards of living. Put another way, if you have a Mercedes and a Chevy, and both have identical damage, of course the Mercedes will cost more to fix than the Chevy. So of course California has more debt than Texas; Texas was never a Mercedes.

Edit: I think it's funny that all of those petitions regarding "X-state leave the Union to form it's own NEW government" use the same style of writing :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

I disagree fundamentally. The states don't "need" the money from the federal government. The ones that do "need" it are in dire need of fiscal change. California is a prime example of what NOT to do. If you got rid of all the federal waste (in regards to regulations, taxes, and spending) I think most of the states would do just fine on their own. Either organically or by going bankrupt and being forced to change their fiscal policies.
 
Pheonix28 said:
I disagree fundamentally. The states don't "need" the money from the federal government. The ones that do "need" it are in dire need of fiscal change... If you got rid of all the federal waste (in regards to regulations, taxes, and spending) I think most of the states would do just fine on their own. Either organically or by going bankrupt and being forced to change their fiscal policies.
Click to expand...

Sure, the states can secede, but there's no way they can continue the standard of living they are accustomed to - not when they take more federal money than they can generate on their own. Also if these states secede, they'll lose out on the US military, they'll be responsible for their own power, etc. Since most of these states rely on the feds to help their resident's with their standard of living, how are these states supposed to afford a military, a decent infrastructure, etc. too? The answer is they can't. They'll all turn into third-world countries.

Even in the Union, states like South Carolina and Tennessee fight Georgia for access to Lake Lanier, which is at least 100 miles within the Georgia border. If we can't get along in the Union, imagine how it will be if we are all on our own with the ability to declare war on each other?

Pheonix28 said:
California is a prime example of what NOT to do.
Click to expand...

California's large economy afforded them the ability to upgrade their schools, their colleges, their infrastructure, etc. So when California's enormous economy fell, they had a long way to fall. However, when their economy fell their expensive schools, colleges, and infrastructure stayed. Those things were intended to work in a thriving economy. You're saying a booming economy with innovation (that's exactly what it was) is a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
Thank you Odale for spelling it right. Now I know some states would like to split in two, but again economics rears it's ugly little head, and the portions of the state with the most money and most population usually don't want the split. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan has been talking about separate state hood since 1902 and it is getting to be somewhat of an in joke in Da Yoo Pee. Da Yoopers actually did a song about it.
 
Odale said:
Sure, the states can secede, but there's no way they can continue the standard of living they are accustomed to - not when they take more federal money than they can generate on their own.
Click to expand...

Googled this yesterday...

...about $8 billion will be Medicaid — and that is the real budget problem faced by Texas and many other states. Rules changes associated with Obamacare will add about 71 percent to Texas’s Medicaid expenses over the first ten years of implementation — that’s Texas’s out-of-pocket expense, not money that the feds reimburse under Medicaid — an increase that quite literally threatens to bankrupt the state. source

My point is the Federal Government can cost us money by imposing rules on us and expecting us to pay for it. It's not all free federal aid given to us. Sure getting off of Obamacare will be a bear once in effect but if we were not part of America we'd never have to opt in and become addicted.
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting article I just read that focuses on Texas' economic strengths and weaknesses. Admittedly, I didn't think Texas was so well off; but I've never been able to distinguish a Texan's over-the-top love for their state from reason, either. So I think my previous statement retains its merit.

Gerbil - you should read it.
 
Odale said:
Here's an interesting article I just read that focuses on Texas' economic strengths and weaknesses. Admittedly, I didn't think Texas was so well off; but I've never been able to distinguish a Texan's over-the-top love for their state from reason, either. So I think my previous statement retains its merit.

Gerbil - you should read it.
Click to expand...

I reads. You know, unlike most states (except Hawaii and Vermont), Texas already was a sovereign nation. We survived being a nation once I don't think we'd fall as far as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

My only argument in this discussion is that it is possible for federal intervention to do harm. As one should not be overtly enamored with their state the same holds true one should not be overtly enamored with their country. We can quibble over whether we are more helped or hurt by federal intervention, or more importantly if the cost of our liberties is worth it, but we should never take the mindset it's USA or nothing. Nations fail and fall new ones are born. At some point you say this is not the America I know anymore and move on. I'm not at that point yet, I still have hope for our country, but it has eroded lately.

Honestly we are getting so many illegal immigrants Texas is eroding too. A problem our federal government has not handled. The irony is Texas originally joined America for military protection from Mexico.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top