Federalization of the States

[Rotagilla]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

 

[Discombobulated]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they bitch about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So you corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

No, I'm saying corporations don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. The average individual taxpayer pays a far higher real tax rate. I'm sure that works out well for the primary share holders.

Define fair share, and define real tax rate. I don't know what those terms mean. Corporations are not people themselves, they are groups of people. The individuals in said groups pay taxes as individual tax payers. Thus you just said groups of individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes as individuals are paying. Thus your position is nonsensical. You appear to be saying that people involved with corporations should have to pay their individual income taxes twice, once as a part of a group then again as an individual.

The average individual tax payer is paying ZERO in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. So I have no idea why you think zero is greater than zero. Your concept of zero is confusing me. It must have something to do with this fairness thing you are talking about.

Already been defined. We, the average taxpayers, pay a far higher tax real rate than does any corporation. I can see the issue of fundamental fairness has you confused. If the free market system is so free I wonder why we have to subsidize it all the time? Why aren't these corporations profitable on their own?

 

[Discombobulated]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Not much on Civil War history either are you. The conscription rate was 12% for Confederate troops, 6% for Federal troops.

Did I say something about the north using a time machine to go back and re-fight our first civil war? I don't see that in my text. Can you point out where I said anything about the last civil war? Yes the north used mostly foreigners to fight the war against the south in the first civil war. You'll note drafts are not new to this country. Take a look at WWI and II.

Oh I see, you were just making a completely ridiculous out of context remark. It all makes perfect sense now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they bitch about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So you corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

No, I'm saying corporations don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. The average individual taxpayer pays a far higher real tax rate. I'm sure that works out well for the primary share holders.

Define fair share, and define real tax rate. I don't know what those terms mean. Corporations are not people themselves, they are groups of people. The individuals in said groups pay taxes as individual tax payers. Thus you just said groups of individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes as individuals are paying. Thus your position is nonsensical. You appear to be saying that people involved with corporations should have to pay their individual income taxes twice, once as a part of a group then again as an individual.

The average individual tax payer is paying ZERO in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. So I have no idea why you think zero is greater than zero. Your concept of zero is confusing me. It must have something to do with this fairness thing you are talking about.

Already been defined. We, the average taxpayers, pay a far higher tax real rate than does any corporation. I can see the issue of fundamental fairness has you confused. If the free market system is so free I wonder why we have to subsidize it all the time? Why aren't these corporations profitable on their own?

Where is fair share defined, where is real tax rate defined, link pls.

Yes or no do you or do you not know the average tax payer pays ZERO EFFECTIVE TAX RATE for their Federal Income tax. Yes or no? Not a hard question.

The reason they are not more profitable is two fold. One profit has been defined by democrats as evil. Thus bragging about profits and using profits to promote the company is no longer viable in this country. Two if they have a profit they have to pay tax on the profit. So instead of throwing the money away they increase their expenses look for loop holes to avoid having to throw their money away.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Where would they get the money after supporting all of the nonproducers that flocked north for freebies?

Soros only has so much and China would have all their money invested in the South.

The same place they are getting it from today. Thin air.

The point is that they can print all the money they want, but it will eventually take a truck load to buy a Big Mac.

 

[Disir]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

I don't think that you understand different objectives. You seem to think that there is this friendship thing. It does not exist any longer. Clearly there will be different objectives.

What you want is all of the rights and the protection but none of the responsibilities.

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Not much on Civil War history either are you. The conscription rate was 12% for Confederate troops, 6% for Federal troops.

Did I say something about the north using a time machine to go back and re-fight our first civil war? I don't see that in my text. Can you point out where I said anything about the last civil war? Yes the north used mostly foreigners to fight the war against the south in the first civil war. You'll note drafts are not new to this country. Take a look at WWI and II.

Oh I see, you were just making a completely ridiculous out of context remark. It all makes perfect sense now.

So you think it is ridiculous to think in a civil war between the north and south, the north would hold a draft? Are you retarded?

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

 

[Discombobulated]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they bitch about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So you corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

No, I'm saying corporations don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. The average individual taxpayer pays a far higher real tax rate. I'm sure that works out well for the primary share holders.

Define fair share, and define real tax rate. I don't know what those terms mean. Corporations are not people themselves, they are groups of people. The individuals in said groups pay taxes as individual tax payers. Thus you just said groups of individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes as individuals are paying. Thus your position is nonsensical. You appear to be saying that people involved with corporations should have to pay their individual income taxes twice, once as a part of a group then again as an individual.

The average individual tax payer is paying ZERO in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. So I have no idea why you think zero is greater than zero. Your concept of zero is confusing me. It must have something to do with this fairness thing you are talking about.

Already been defined. We, the average taxpayers, pay a far higher tax real rate than does any corporation. I can see the issue of fundamental fairness has you confused. If the free market system is so free I wonder why we have to subsidize it all the time? Why aren't these corporations profitable on their own?

Where is fair share defined, where is real tax rate defined, link pls.

Yes or no do you or do you not know the average tax payer pays ZERO EFFECTIVE TAX RATE for their Federal Income tax. Yes or no? Not a hard question.

The reason they are not more profitable is two fold. One profit has been defined by democrats as evil. Thus bragging about profits and using profits to promote the company is no longer viable in this country. Two if they have a profit they have to pay tax on the profit. So instead of throwing the money away they increase their expenses look for loop holes to avoid having to throw their money away.

Where is fair share defined? Are you fucking kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

 

[CitizenSeven]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Where would they get the money after supporting all of the nonproducers that flocked north for freebies?

Soros only has so much and China would have all their money invested in the South.

The same place they are getting it from today. Thin air.

The point is that they can print all the money they want, but it will eventually take a truck load to buy a Big Mac.

Then they'll just start up a new banking system. Not the first time a country hit the reset button on their tender.

 

[Discombobulated]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Not much on Civil War history either are you. The conscription rate was 12% for Confederate troops, 6% for Federal troops.

Did I say something about the north using a time machine to go back and re-fight our first civil war? I don't see that in my text. Can you point out where I said anything about the last civil war? Yes the north used mostly foreigners to fight the war against the south in the first civil war. You'll note drafts are not new to this country. Take a look at WWI and II.

Oh I see, you were just making a completely ridiculous out of context remark. It all makes perfect sense now.

So you think it is ridiculous to think in a civil war between the north and south, the north would hold a draft? Are you retarded?

No, wrong again....but you keep guessing what I'm thinking about. What I'm thinking is: you say a lot of stupid shit and you don't know any history.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

I don't think that you understand different objectives. You seem to think that there is this friendship thing. It does no exist any longer. Clearly there will be different objectives.

What you want is all of the rights and the protection but none of the responsibilities.

None of its responsibilities????

I want ALL of its responsibilities and ONLY its responsibilities.

Show me where the Constitution mandates free medical care? Free school lunches? Free housing for illegal aliens?

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Where would they get the money after supporting all of the nonproducers that flocked north for freebies?

Soros only has so much and China would have all their money invested in the South.

The same place they are getting it from today. Thin air.

The point is that they can print all the money they want, but it will eventually take a truck load to buy a Big Mac.

Then they'll just start up a new banking system. Not the first time a country hit the reset button on their tender.

Of course not, but once the North revalues the dollar, don't think that 3 of them will buy you a gallon of gas.

 

[Discombobulated]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

They don't have my permission to dismember my country, and they never will.

 

[RKMBrown]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Where is fair share defined? Are you fucking kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

Over 1/3 of the soldiers in the union army were non-native foreign fighters fresh off the boat.

No, not kidding. Where is fair share defined? Can you provide a link to the definition of fair share of taxes.

Most Individuals pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about you whining about corporations paying zero in taxes when corporations are merely a piece of paper describing a group of individuals, each of which already pay their taxes as individuals? Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a group?

 

[CitizenSeven]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

They don't have my permission to dismember my country, and they never will.

People have the right to self-determination, with or without your permission.

 

[Rotagilla]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

 

[Discombobulated]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

They don't have my permission to dismember my country, and they never will.

People have the right to self-determination, with or without your permission.

No your wrong, the temporary residents of Texas or any other state have no right to self determination outside the rule of law. That's my country too, it doesn't just belong to whomever happens to live there now.

 

[Disir]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

I don't think that you understand different objectives. You seem to think that there is this friendship thing. It does no exist any longer. Clearly there will be different objectives.

What you want is all of the rights and the protection but none of the responsibilities.

None of its responsibilities????

I want ALL of its responsibilities and ONLY its responsibilities.

Show me where the Constitution mandates free medical care? Free school lunches? Free housing for illegal aliens?

Nothing is free. The question is not where the Constitution mandates. The question is: where does the authority come from?

Medical care:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Note, nothing against inactivity.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Note Legitimate ends.

School lunches
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;