posted
Great now that I move here and can't find a job I'm cut off from all the welfare benefits and then forced to fight a civil war. And it's raining out! Could this day get any worse?
quote:Dressed in jeans, boots and a baseball cap with a camouflage peak and a hunting outfitter's logo.
I was not aware you could use clothing to express sympathy towards that many different constituencies.
quote:While crowds yelled "SECEDE, SECEDE," Perry, 60 but telegenic and youthful, thought out loud that secession might be the outcome if Washington did not mend its "oppressive" high-spending, dictatorial ways.
Treason Treason! Looks like it's time to suspend habeas corpus again.
quote:Senator Hutchison has been criticized for a less than clear response on the issue. She voted against the stimulus bill, then said Perry should find a way to take the benefits without burdening employers in the future.
It provides me with endless entertainment to see folks in congress explain why they voted against the stimulus bill but still accepted the money.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very few bills ever get passed without any 'nay' votes but that doesn't mean that those states whose representatives voted against them don't have to follow them, or in this case pay the taxes and probably inflation costs that come with them (or whatever we think the negative consequences will be). I really can't understand how voting 'no' and accepting the funds after it passes could be considered hypocritical.
posted
Yeah, it does seem unreasonable to expect someone to stand on principle to the extent that they're still responsible for the costs/unintended consequences of the stimulus package while bearing none of the benefits. Especially when its not as if a state or district can "divorce" itself from the section of the federal debt that is attributable to the stimulus package.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as they take their share of the national debt, I'd be happy to see Texas secede.
The question is how we calculate their share of the National Debt, should it be as a percentage of the population, as a percentage of GDP or should we do a detailed estimate of the difference between tax receipts from Texans vs. federal dollars spent on Texas. That one is a little hard to cleanly define -- how much of the Iraq war for example was fought for Texans?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Texas seceded, Washington would invade to get the oil and the oil companies back.
Considering the housing bubble and the housing bust bypassed Texas completely, the USA would be better off if Texas just left. Calculate who owes what, and Washington would have to pay alimony.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Texas should secede and then have Chinese troops stationed there decrying the American attempt to use force to retake lands that have been an historical part of the geopolitical national concept of "America" for over 200 years which will result in a 50 year stand off until both sides decide that having the money from trade is more important then any sort of geopolitical concept of containment and swap the territories in question.
IP: Logged |
posted
Basically "my totally seeing it". Nothing scientific or serious.
I don't see it being tremendously hospitable to certain populations, though. I could be wrong about that. I feel like should it secede a lot of more liberal residents would leave, meaning elections would likely result in the most right wing government in the Western world.
And that's not only economically, but likely also socially.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Texas should secede and then have Chinese troops stationed there decrying the American attempt to use force to retake lands that have been an historical part of the geopolitical national concept of "America" for over 200 years which will result in a 50 year stand off until both sides decide that having the money from trade is more important then any sort of geopolitical concept of containment and swap the territories in question.
I'm actually finishing up my BA in Polysci by doing a research paper on this very phenomenon Blayne.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
That makes me wonder if you've ever been to Texas at all. It's a big place - you would appreciate and enjoy and benefit from a trip to Austin and Houston, I think.
In other words, you really don't know what you're talking about, and the result is less than positive for you or Texas.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If Texas seceded, Washington would invade to get the oil and the oil companies back.
There is very little oil left in Texas and the companies are all multinationals so there no problem. We'd probably have to fight over the off shore oil rights, but I think the US Navy can easily win that one.
quote:Considering the housing bubble and the housing bust bypassed Texas completely, the USA would be better off if Texas just left. Calculate who owes what, and Washington would have to pay alimony. [/QB]
Might I ask how you come to the conclusion that the housing bubble/bust are the primary factors contributing to the national debt? The national debt was over 11 trillion dollars before the first cent was spent on the economic bailout.
Furthermore, given the level of integration of mortgage banking, the fact that Texas houses weren't strongly involved in the current real estate crash has little relation to whether Texas investors and insurance companies were involved in the crash.
I've looked through a bit of data, and could not find a single year in which Tax receipts from Texas were not less than federal spending in Texas. There is no way on this green earth that the rest of the country would owe Texas money if they left the union. There is no question that a good part of our 11 trillion dollar debt belongs to Texas -- we can argue about how much but it is absolutely not zero and certainly not negative.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The USA has been lucky to have Texas. If Texas ever left, Washington should be grateful for the times it had.
The alimony will cover the cost of supporting the illegal immigrants that Washington's screwed up immigration policies created.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realise it's not a homogeneous state at the moment. And perhaps those wishing to secede really are a good representation of the many different social strata in Texas or perhaps they are not. And perhaps those undercurrents would become more mainstream (heh, river metaphor) in a Republic of Texas.
But, for example, applying it to Quebec which has a similar history blah-buh-blah, secessionists tend to have a vibe that is less than friendly towards English-speakers. That vibe might be more expressed in the Repubique de Quebec.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you go, beware of the Nazi zombies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Texas should secede and then have Chinese troops stationed there decrying the American attempt to use force to retake lands that have been an historical part of the geopolitical national concept of "America" for over 200 years which will result in a 50 year stand off until both sides decide that having the money from trade is more important then any sort of geopolitical concept of containment and swap the territories in question.
I'm actually finishing up my BA in Polysci by doing a research paper on this very phenomenon Blayne.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Texas should secede and then have Chinese troops stationed there decrying the American attempt to use force to retake lands that have been an historical part of the geopolitical national concept of "America" for over 200 years which will result in a 50 year stand off until both sides decide that having the money from trade is more important then any sort of geopolitical concept of containment and swap the territories in question.
I'm actually finishing up my BA in Polysci by doing a research paper on this very phenomenon Blayne.
0.o
You might find Magyar, and Emerson M.S. Niou's work of interest if you want to break the ice.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well I mean I was just being satirical I wasn't aware I actually stumbled upon something.
IP: Logged |
quote:The USA has been lucky to have Texas. If Texas ever left, Washington should be grateful for the times it had.
Texas was lucky the US let it in the first place. If we had left them on their own in 1836, Texas would be indistinguishable today from Mexico and a dozen other latin American countries.
quote: The alimony will cover the cost of supporting the illegal immigrants that Washington's screwed up immigration policies created.
And what cost would that be? All the studies show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in social services and contribute more to the economy than they are paid.
Furthermore, Texans have been complicit in most of Washington's failed policies. Two of the last 5 Presidents have been Texas and over half the national debt was accumulated on their watch.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presidents have been Texans? That's the argument? That doesn't work at all. Do you understand why?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I observed on Ornery, we'd miss the oil briefly, until the sudden drought of oil lobbyists in Washington perhaps gave us a serious chance at oil independence. But the rest of Texas? Not so much. I can't think of a single downside to losing Texas that doesn't pale compared to not having to put up with Texans anymore.
The hardest part would be building a 12' wall around the Texas border, but -- as I suggested earlier -- we might be able to convince them to build it themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well I mean I was just being satirical I wasn't aware I actually stumbled upon something.
It was more your statement, "until both sides decide that having the money from trade is more important then any sort of geopolitical concept of containment and swap the territories in question." That applies to what I'm researching.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering Washington can't get it together to come up with a border policy for the borders they have now, the chance of coming up with one later is nil.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you're probably right. Arizona and Oklahoma would probably have to put up signs like "No Texans Allowed."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't realize there were that many jobs to go around in Oklahoma; it always seems like they're complaining about it. But sure, if there are plenty of jobs to do, I'm sure they won't mind letting illegal Texans do 'em.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Aha. It seems inevitable, Chinas economy will likely keep on growing and Taiwans will soon stop when it reaches the max amount of development it can support, Japan has hit the same snag. We have already seen the first stage of this or preliminary if you will when the world pretty much as one switched recognition and put the PRC on the Security Council.
The next stage after that is consolidation, Taiwan and the PRC trying with affluence to convince the remaining or enough world leaders to stay in their pocket, this stage has passed as it is clearly apparant that Taiwan lacks the affluence it had 30 years ago relatively to compete with the PRC's new affluence forcing it to try a more "moral hey I'm a victim" approch.
Third stage, when this utterly failed when it comes perfectly apparent the world doesn't care about any actually issue unless oil or uranium is involved Plus the PRC's own rapidly growing attractiveness economically makes the Taiwanese more and more seriously considering compromise, with the "ProUnification" parties winning the recent elections we are already seeing a gradual realignment of Taiwan's views to that of negotiation.
Which begins the next stage, the clear admittance by omission that Taiwan cannot sustain its de facto independence indefinitely, that Reunification is potentially desirable by at least a significant margin of the population as long as it is on their terms and not become say Sinkiang, a province desired for its wealth and not for it becoming an integral part of the national framework.
So I predict that barring unforseen diplomatic and geopolitical circumstances and that Zhongnanhai remains as patient and far thinking as they so far have been and keep their cards together and play them right they can probly have unification down pat by about 2020 to 2050. Basically Taiwan will play hard to get and keeping in mind that Beijing wants the island intact and on good terms with the international community as a first priority plan alpha knowing this will try to hold out for the best deal possible. Taiwan will probably want lots of subsidies, immediate access to markets, preservation of its institutions, laws, and probly want an agreement like Hong Kongs of no economic interfearance for 50 years or something or other and maybe a statue or two dedicated to them, Beijing will at first refuse as they want only 1 centralized government not a federation but some compromise will probably be reached sometime around when their trade starts booming as the first steps obviously will be for the ProUni parties to open up trade and air travel links within the next few years which will lead the way.
The above of course is the best case scenario, possible additional option involving the above is that with America's current economic climate and say the fictional situation of Texas going AWOL and asking for Chinese assistance the US would possible offer or accept a deal to pull from Taiwan in exchange for China to pull from Texas, similar deals have been done before (Cuba/Turkey).
Further pressuring Taiwan to compromise possibly earlier and with slightely less then they'ld originally want to get away with.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... All the studies show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in social services and contribute more to the economy than they are paid.
The issue may be moot anyways. I daresay many of the illegal immigrants would probably leave rapidly in most of the scenarios that lead to an independent Texas. Heck, I daresay a non-insignificant number of recent legal immigrants and minorities would probably leave too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about NASA? NASA is a very important national investment and anyone working for them or their corporate affiliates should be transferred to real US jobs immediately. (see job support thread if wondering why I care about companies contracting to NASA and their employees).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would my friends down there be able to set up "The Independent City-state of Austin"? I mean, could they really object to cities seceding from them if Texas decided to secede from us?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Texas was lucky the US let it in the first place. If we had left them on their own in 1836, Texas would be indistinguishable today from Mexico and a dozen other latin American countries.
'Let'? Seems to me it wasn't as though Texas was banging desperately on our door to be let in, and the US only reluctantly and with great uncertainty said, "OK, I guess..."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Would my friends down there be able to set up "The Independent City-state of Austin"? I mean, could they really object to cities seceding from them if Texas decided to secede from us?
I don't know. Could the Federal government secede from Britain and object to the South seceding from them?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or more recently, IIRC, Quebec fully intended on denying separation to those areas of Quebec that are dominated by natives and wanted to go their own way in the event of Quebec separating.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to know what would happen to all the 6 Flags theme parks. Would they be renamed 7 Flags? Would Texas close all parks outside Texas out of spite?
Whatever happens, we must make sure not to lose our ROLLER COASTERS!!!
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, could they really object to cities seceding from them if Texas decided to secede from us?
It is impossible to overstate a typical Texan's ability to object to something.
True.
Slightly unrelated, I loved John Oliver's segment about the Tea Part demonstrations the other day on the Daily Show.
He got more and more annoyed, because obviously his people (the British) were much more tyrannical than the current American administration. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to know what would happen to all the 6 Flags theme parks. Would they be renamed 7 Flags? Would Texas close all parks outside Texas out of spite?
Whatever happens, we must make sure not to lose our ROLLER COASTERS!!!
They would still be Six Flags - the Republic of Texas is one of those flags, and Texas could go back to it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, you're probably right. Arizona and Oklahoma would probably have to put up signs like "No Texans Allowed."
Just like many many "back easters" you completely over looked New Mexico. Arizona doesn't even share a border with Texas. Despite what you may have heard, New Mexico really is a part of the US, you know.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I tend to forget about New Mexico. My mental image of the state is Arizona with slightly more dust and a lot more integrity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Texas was lucky the US let it in the first place. If we had left them on their own in 1836, Texas would be indistinguishable today from Mexico and a dozen other latin American countries.
'Let'? Seems to me it wasn't as though Texas was banging desperately on our door to be let in, and the US only reluctantly and with great uncertainty said, "OK, I guess..."
Actually that is a pretty reasonable summary of what happened. Mexico never signed the treaty ending the Texican revolution. Texas was under continual threat from Mexico and sued to join the United States for protection. Since Texas would become a slave state, their admission to the United States was fought strongly by abolitionists and it wasn't until Polk (a southern) became president that Texas was admitted to the union.
The US also assumed the debts of the Republic of Texas when it joined the Union.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, I tend to forget about New Mexico. My mental image of the state is Arizona with slightly more dust and a lot more integrity.
You really ought to visit New Mexico sometime. Your vision is quite off.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, I tend to forget about New Mexico. My mental image of the state is Arizona with slightly more dust and a lot more integrity.
posted
I met my husband in New Mexico. I don't know about the state by it would be hard to find a guy with more integrity than my husband.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Arizona doesn't even share a border with Texas. Despite what you may have heard, New Mexico really is a part of the US, you know.
