Secession
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
I'm not going to defend congress over the issues, but if we secede there's no money to fund anything. Anywhere. Your generation included. In the end less than 5% will look back and say it was a good move to secede.
If anyone can prove me wrong on the issue I'd be open minded. But starting out with zero funds is failure wtg to happen. And as mentioned before the US will already have millions upon millions of tax money of red state corporations confiscated. Delays funding anything and everything.
Blue states would embargo red states, limiting trade. Which limits GDP which limits ability to fund a functional nation.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Not sure how reparations is linked to anything I said.
Either way, this got too heated. I apologize for my role in it.
You raise reasonable questions about secession. But I think you think confidently that certain things will happen or not happen. I think there isn't much certainty about what would happen and I think there are solutions to the problems you bring up.
I don't prefer secession, but regardless states are going to have to be more autonomous if we are going to preserve liberty or an American way of life. That means they will have to seize power away from DC somehow and that means taking money away from them.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
1, certain things *will* happen if a red state(s) secede. Please refer to Ft Sumter. DC won't just let states just break away
2. One issue is finances. You can't start a nation with vapor. You need money and currency. We'd start from absolutely nothing
3. We all agree states need our rights back, but I live in reality. We didn't get to where we are as a DC based nation in a generation. You'd have to go back to around 1865 for the beginnings. We all know what precipitated that.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
1. Something happened in the past so it will happen in the future when the events are 150 years apart? You are very certain about things. I'll give you that. The reality is that no one can predict the future. Also, we can learn lessons from the past to avoid past mistakes. First step and maybe the only step is to strengthen state authority. I think we agree about that.
2. There are a myriad of solutions to that. You just refuse to consider any.
3. I agree with you about 1865. That was a second revolution the country went through. I'm all for walking back the problems. But you have to put everything on the table to find the best solution.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
This simply isn't true huisache. Texas economy was doing well once Sam Houston was re-elected as President. He implemented hard money and cut government spending. Texas went through a recession and recovery which undid all the proto-Keynesian foolishness that Mirabeau Lamar implemented.
This isn't utopian. There are real problems that would have to be addressed. Things wouldn't be perfect. But at some point separating from DC will be overall better than being connected to DC and all the crazy woke marxism that is currently in power.
As an interesting aside, the city of Austin is one of Lamar's biggest boondoggles. He moved the capital from Houston to Austin and started a huge public works program to pour money into building Austin up. He did it to directly shame and snub Houston. One of the subtle digs at Houston is that two of the main roads were named after Houston's two biggest rivals, Lamar and Burnet. Burnet HATED Houston. He was a real jerk and jealous that Houston was a better general and leader than him.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
You really think the US govt will say "oh go ahead and separate. Your tax dollars and natural resources aren't important to us. Here. Here are the billions of tax $ we're holding from your corporations, we don't want them".
Preposterous. Reference j6 for how DC operates.
Myriad of solutions? You haven't offered any.
You sound like you'd love to be a Mexican citizen naively speaking Spanish.
It is 2024, not 1836. Texas has the 8th largest economy in the world with massive natural resources, refineries and ports. If Texas played its hand with other red states - especially along the gulf coast, the federal government would be forced to act responsibly.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Part of the key would be to convince the rural North to support it. The North won the Civil War by enlisting guys from southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. These were basically Southerners culturally that could fight as well as the South. Without them the war could have gone differently.
I'm no fan of giving money to illegal aliens, but if we never paid a cent to a single illegal alien, it wouldn't even make a dent in Social Security's and Medicare's fiscal problems. You may as well try to move an ocean with a teaspoon.
Mr D
For me and many, it isn't just the amount even if it is only 200 billion or so.
It is that IT IS.
Just like it is said to be a small number of illegals who commit crimes including rape and murder.
IF illegals weren't allowed to invade neither of those would happen.
That is the problem.
For me and many, it isn't just the amount even if it is only 200 billion or so.
It is that IT IS.
Just like it is said to be a small number of illegals who commit crimes including rape and murder.
IF illegals weren't allowed to invade neither of those would happen.
That is the problem.
That's where my mind was at when I posted, not actual $.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
These same people you are referring to burned Atlanta to the ground and killed civilians along the way.
Hmm. Allegiance. It's a powerful thing in those situations
I agree with you about illegal aliens getting money. My problem is with bringing it up as an excuse not to reform entitlements. Two things can be true at once. We shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to illegal aliens, and we need to reform our entitlement system - and would need to do so even if we had no illegal aliens taking any federal money.
Well, sure, I think we're all in agreement with that except a couple of bozo's that don't post here anymore and we know who they are.
Texas could not defend against incursions by Mexico or attacks by Comanches. It was poor and had few revenue sources. It desperately needed the federal army for protection
the glorification of the nation period is typical of all Golden Age thinking
the US government sucks but that does not mean a secession would improve much.
And there is the fact that most of the country believes it is illegal
we don’t know and cannot know all the parameters involved in separation and the Law of Unintended Consequences is the one law that cannot be amended, avoided or revoked
and the polling on the subject suggests there is minimal interest for separation in Texas
Step 1: figure out who is truly disabled, to the point they can't effectively work; take care of them.
Step 2: boot the non-disabled off of disability.
That would:
A. Save a lot of taxpayer $,
B. Mitigate the corrosive effect on the family, and individuals, in this country.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't remember reading about any real threat from Mexico. There were as many failed incursions of Texans going into Mexico as there were the other way around.
The Commanches were going to capitulate eventually. Texas was no more threatened by them than the Spaniards had been for 300 years. Influenza, smallpox, and other diseases reduced all Indian populations to about 10% or less than what they had been. Use of the Colt revolver would have been the same regardless of what state entity Texas resided within. The Colt provided the technological/military advantage Anglos needed.
Who knows. Depending on many factors, it may indeed be worse to secede. But looking at state vs federal today, removing the federal government would be a net benefit holding all other things equal.
I had read the opposite. Oh well.
Can’t and won’t are two different things. The state has rights protected by the constitution. If the US is not following the constitution, why would a state being invaded by a foreign country not be able to exit?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Yes. The states are sovereign, pre-existing political entities which decided to enter the federal system. That means they have the authority to leave if they so choose regardless about what anybody else says.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
No. War doesn't prove what is right and wrong. It only proves what side is able to utilize more force in war.
Every state from the start of the union was confident they could leave whenever they wanted. It is the same logic found in the Declaration Of Independence.
They seemed to do okay on the front in 1836.
That/this part of the country used to wield national political power far outscale to its population. How? Through its senior, and very senior, Senators.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
