If Texas secedes .....?

[Beavah 205]

If it gets bad enough for Texas to actually secede, I imagine a few other Red states will be ready to follow suit. If Texas remains the only state to secede, their population will probably be doubled by an influx of other disenchanted conservatives and overtaxed companies.

 

Yah, this is a great idea! Let's put all da wingnuts who destroyed our Republican party in one place, eh? We'll take Austin and UT and da other economically productive folks as refugees. They can keep da oil crowd that gave us such masterful businesses as Enron.

 

Heck with any luck, the descendants of a red-haired wimpy liberal university president from Ohio will get a chance to head on down and march through a state all the way to the sea. Just like their great-great-great-granddad did.

 

The ones who still don't get da notion that we live in a Union can flee to Mexico with the other uneducated laborers and whine about the war of northern aggression for another 150 years.

 

Sign me,

Proud member of da real Republican party that started with Honest Abe.

 

 

[JoeBob 606]

Beavah,

 

I admire you even keeled approach and reconciliatory tone. Humor puts a softer edge on sharp points, and enables the target of your arguments to at least consider your shot. I just can't do it, anymore.

 

Was Arlen Specter a 'Real Republican'? I'm not. I'm not a Republican, period. I don't think that any political entity should try to legislate morality. And when you use your relegion as the basis for your laws, don't you exempt everyone not of your relegion from that justification, and thereby those laws?

 

The only reason that I wind up voting with the Republicans is that I still believe strongly in the principles I learned as a scout: individual resposibility and self-reliance. Both of which are the opposite of what the current crop of Democrats are using to perpetuate their own personal power. Zell Miller, I miss you!

 

Our republic is sorely in need of a third party. Blue dog Democrats and socially liberal Republicans need a home, along with all the thoughtful independents who are disgusted with all the partisan games being played by both sides.

 

Hopefully we can solve our national problems without states having to secede in order to get the 10th amendment enforced. I'm tired of holding my nose to vote.

 

I appreciate this oportunity to release some steam.

 

See Y'all,

JoeBob

[scoutingagain 20]

"Our republic is sorely in need of a third party. Blue dog Democrats and socially liberal Republicans need a home, along with all the thoughtful independents who are disgusted with all the partisan games being played by both sides."

 

Amen. As an independent I'm tired of too often of having to pick between the lesser of two what I consider poor choices. In the last Presidential election I voted for the Democrat only because the candidate of my choice did not make it through the primaries. The 2000 version of Senator McCain.

 

SA

[GernBlansten 10]

We have a third party, the Libertarians. However us Libertarians have as many moonbats as the Republicans have. Once we kick the moonbats out and send them to the nation of Texas, we might become a viable challenge to the democrats.

[JoeBob 606]

Gern,

 

I've voted for Libertarians on the local level. But they lost my support when their presidential candidate wouldn't support defending the country.

 

SA, a third party wouldn't have to be very large to have a major impact. If a 3rd party could get 10% to 15% in both houses, they could pick and choose the legislation that passsed by working with either of the existing parties.

 

I've grown weary of conservative mouth pieces saying "You're either 100% with us, or you're with the Democrats." If the Republicans interpret their current dimished status as a call to move farther right, they'll probably become even more marginalized and smaller.

 

There is hope.

[erickelly65 10]

Actually to be honest, I dont see how any of this thread complies with this sites so-called "rules of decorum"

[CalicoPenn 729]

It's interesting how many independents and "libertarians" of a conservative bent use neocon Republican talking points to characterize the Democrats.

 

I could never understand how people could actually get from the Democrat platform of preserving a women's right to choose to "Democrats are against personal responsibility" (somehow missing the point that the position seems pretty consistent with the Libertarian position on personal liberty) to "Democrats want publicly funded abortions" (when they Democrats have never said that).

 

I'm thinking its because many just don't want to be bothered to look into all sides of an issue and prefer to take the easy way out and just repeat a statement that sounds as if it matches their philosophy or politics.

 

I say let Texas secede - make sure to pull all US military hardware out of the new country, and when Mexico invades to reclaim it's territory, plant our military on the Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana border to make sure the conflict doesn't spill over to the US, and to prevent "refugees" from fleeing the soon to be new Mexican state.

 

Calico

[JoeBob 606]

Calico,

 

How did you make the jump from 'Personal responsibility' to Abortion? As a pro-choice independent with conservative leanings, I think that any Govt interference in what is essentially a women's health care issue is wrong. I don't want to debate abortion on this forum. I'll probably get banned for life if I write what I really think on that issue.

 

How about the effect that these programs have on personal responsibility:

1- Social Security - Where's that in the constitution? http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba215.pdf

2- Welfare - Churches and private charity do it better locally.

3- Food Stamps - Why work?

4- Socialized medicine - Hasn't worked well anywhere else, so we need it here. Pass me a cigarette and a BigMac. The ER has to take me.

5- The War on Drugs - Talk about a waste of resources. Legalize drugs and tax drug use for rehab programs. Can't rehab? Die.

6- Earned Income Tax Credit - Here, take my money.

7- Gotta beachfront/riverside home? Don't worry about hurricanes or floods, the feds will rebuild you.

8- Bailout my Bank or pay my mortgage?

 

Sorry. I rant. (The drool on my keyboard alerted me.)

 

JoeBob's rule for government:

Government should ONLY do

what ONLY government can do.

 

That's enough for them to FUBAR.

[BulldogBlitz 10]

IF texas secedes.... and nobama tries to stop the secession with force wouldn't that make for an interesting issue?

 

nobama invading a nation for oil.

[GernBlansten 10]

If y'all secede, we'll just setup an embargo.

[CalicoPenn 729]

JoeBob - perhaps you're right - it isn't a linear linkage from woman's right to choose to the characterization that there is a demand for government funded abortion. I suppose the reality is it was a two-pronged attack from the get go - the Democratic platform of maintaining a woman's right to choose was attacked with "whatever happened to personal responsibility" and "the Democrats want government funded abortion" both at the same time.

 

As for the list:

 

- Social Security - Where's that in the constitution? How about "Provide for the General Welfare". I think many people believe Article 1, Section 8 means those are the only things Congress can do when it really means those are the things only Congress can do - it's a restriction on the States, not on Congress. Article 1, Section 9 are the restrictions on Congress, and there is nothing in Section 9 that says they can't create welfare or social security programs.

2- Welfare - Churches and private charity do it better locally. If this were true, governments would never have had to do any of this in the first place. The fact is churches and private charity are overwhelmed and have been for years - they can never leverage the kind of money the government can to address these issues.

3- Food Stamps - Why work? Every have food stamps? I have - back in the 80's when I lived off campus while going to school full time, I got $81 per month. Folks don't get much more than that now per person and it doesn't fully meet the need.

4- Socialized medicine - Hasn't worked well anywhere else, so we need it here. Pass me a cigarette and a BigMac. The ER has to take me. The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th on it's list of best health care providers. Most of the folks in the top 36 have some form of socialized medicine - kind of hard to believe that is isn't working well anywhere else when its working better than our system.

5- The War on Drugs - Talk about a waste of resources. Legalize drugs and tax drug use for rehab programs. Can't rehab? Die. I actually agree - legalize and tax drugs.

6- Earned Income Tax Credit - Here, take my money. At aboult $36 billion dollars, this is one of the least costly anti-poverty programs of the US Government. I'm willing to live with a few less B-1 Bombers to keep this program in place.

7- Gotta beachfront/riverside home? Don't worry about hurricanes or floods, the feds will rebuild you. I pretty much agree with you on this one too - but I'd only modify it slightly - couple the insurance on this with a maximum income level, and make sure it's a primary home, and I don't mind subsidizing the insurance. But a second home, or a home of someone making over $250K per year - let them pay he full cost of the insurance, and spend no federal money on it at all.

8- Bailout my Bank or pay my mortgage? Bailout the bank - there is a multiplier effect in play. We get more bang for the buck by giving it to a bank than an individual - but if we do so, get voting stock in the bank - it's taxpayers dollars so the taxpayers representatives should have a say in the corporate governance if the bank must be bailed out.

 

[JoeBob 606]

Calico,

 

Thank you very much for the rational discussion. I don't know why I would have expected anything less from a Scouter.

 

1- 'Where's Social Security in the constitution?'

"How about "Provide for the General Welfare"."

Article 1 Section 8 enumerates Congress' power to collect taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

I read that as the welfare of the country. When read in context with 'common Defence and general Welfare' it's easy to see that the framers meant for this to apply to nationwide projects such as the CDC, TVA, and interstate highways. When our elected representatives perverted that phrase to mean that the federal government had any responsibility for INDIVIDUALS in the United States, they popped the lid off the worm can that began the erosion of individual responsibility.

Social security was the camel's nose. Medicare, welfare, and food stamps followed as politicians pandered to voters. I admit that earlier motives were probably altruistic, but lately I can only see self-perpetuating power lust in politicians.

The Tenth Amendment is where the Framers specifically limited the power of the feds to meddle.

 

Calico, I fear that the profit motive which has historically urged our citizens to produce the excellence that has made the United States great; is being dissolved by the 'Cradle to Grave' mentality coming out of Washington. To hardworking risk-takers, the federal motivation of 2009 is to move somewhere else so that you can keep some of the fruit of your labors.

An independent Texas would be convenient.

 

Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. The Fed is depending on China to buy our debt, and we're becoming a credit risk, so China is charging us a higher rate. (Unintended benefit: China is less likely to go to war against someone who owes them so much money.) What happens when the economy spirals down, the projected revenues crash, and the US goes bankrupt? The world economy will also crash. The drop to 3rd world status will affect US citizens the most, because we have the longest fall to become agrarian. Food will the isuue.

 

Sorry, I wax survivalist.

 

If we can resurrect the concept of indivdual responsibility, without hitting bottom first, our childrens lives will be much better.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to rant.

Thanks,

JoeBob

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

Rant away - we're in issues and politics.

 

You make a persuasive point about general welfare being about the country. If I may suggest a counter point. Social Security and the other welfare programs came from a period in our history where we were dealing with abject poverty on a massive scale, and at the beginning of this country's transistion from a rural to urban society. During the Great Depression, we recognized that having individuals living in deep poverty was as damaging to the country as the potential to have a submarine launching a missile off the coast of New Jersey into Washington D.C. Grand projects like the Interstate Highway System or the TVA, and government agencies like the CDC are great for providing indirect help to the people. However, providing direct help to the people, whether through a program such as the CCC, the WPA, Food Stamps, the WIC program, and Social Security can have a greater impact on our social structure, and the welfare and sercurity of our country as a whole. In my readings, I've not come across anything to suggest the Founders objected to government support of individuals and family when needed - during their time, it was much easier to provide for it on a local basis - but consider their population and size compared to ours.

[Vicki 11]

I heard an interesting speaker the other day say that in the "progression" of our republic, we are no longer called citizens, we are labeled consumers. Her point was that citizens pay attention to what their government is doing, participate in the general debate, and hold themselves accountable for their actions. Consumers do just that, they consume, and are in it for what they can get. There is no personal accountability.

 

It made me think. I never did like the label "consumer" or "consumer economy" and that helped me define why in a concrete way.

 

Vicki

[CalicoPenn 729]

Interesting that you bring up the term consumer. Someone mentioned in another thread the "fair tax" idea being floated around. I read more about it and came away with a bad taste in my mouth. The "Fair Tax" is a tax on consumption - it buts the burden of taxation on consumers rather than spreading it out between businesses, corporations and individuals.

 

Sure, a business who buys 10 reams of paper to consume in their copy machine pays the tax, but they'll build the cost of that tax into the cost of their products or services so the end consumer eventually gets hit with it.

 

The scariest part is that there will be no taxes on raw goods or materials, only on finished goods the consumer buys. So this would mean there would be nothing to prevent a steel distributor from buying a roll of steel for $1,000 from a steel plant and selling it to a manufacturer for $10,000, pocketing a profit of, let's say $8,600, without being taxed on that profit and the manufacturer pricing the lawn mower they made from that roll of steel to reflect the $10,000 cost, so that we, the individual consumers, end up paying taxes on a proportionate share of the value of $10K of steel that was originally sold for $1K all so the steel distributor can pocket a profit of $8.6K tax free. Doesn't seem like much of a fair tax to me. Seems its a "consumer takes it in the shorts" tax.