[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Financing Secession (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/22/2010 11:49:34 AM EDT
|
I honestly think we are polarizing. I honestly think the country has not been this divided since the Civil War. Even for such highly divisive programs like Social Security were passed using a legitimate process in Congress. This health care vote is unprecedented.
It is clear that the parts of the country that want to tax and spend are the parts of the country going bankrupt. It is only the highly-populated portions of the country wanted this. Based on districts, even Kommiefornia was against this bill: Map Equally clear, the parts of the country that are are financially solvent are the parts of the country that are liberty-loving. If we split, the freedom-loving country should be financially able to prosper, while the socialist communist country goes bankrupt. How could this be done with a minimum amount of bloodshed? Economically, the new free nation would thrive. Could enough states declaring independence succeed in being recognized as an independent nation? Could states legally impede the flow of money to the Federal Government? Could the states' Attorney Generals file suit against "penalty" taxes instituted by the Federal Government? Could states simply refuse to implement unfunded Federal mandates? How difficult would a Constitutional Convention be to hold? What legal impediments (formidable as they are) would need to be overcome? Even if extremely unlikely, what things would need to happen? |
|
Interested. ..
Imagine if just one state refused to put up with this BS. How many people would move there? No entitlement programs, low taxes, you keep most of what you make, if you are lazy and don't work you starve, the parasites die off, the productive thrive. I'd move there without even packing my bags. |
|
Quoted: Even better, how many people would move out?Interested. .. Imagine if just one state refused to put up with this BS. How many people would move there? No entitlement programs, low taxes, you keep most of what you make, if you are lazy and don't work you starve, the parasites die off, the productive thrive. I'd move there without even packing my bags. I agree with PP: it wouldn't/couldn't be bloodless. Too many people have way to big a vested interest in maintaining a status quo that continues to reward them for doing nothing more than breathing. |
|
Quoted:
No entitlement programs, low taxes, you keep most of what you make, if you are lazy and don't work you starve, the parasites die off, the productive thrive. I'd move there without even packing my bags. That's true of almost every third world country. What's keeping you from moving? |
|
I don't believe that we are capable of the Velvet Divorce. The takers are so invested in the product of the producers that they would riot and "claim their just due." Hell, we have been so programmed that many of us here would have a hard time choosing sides. The chasm is so deep between the ideologies that there is no middle, common ground. I believe that the break up of the US is inevitable. |
|
2 main issues would have to be planned for before secession could occur....
1. Military installations in the seceding states / areas would need to be secured. 2. Border areas would need to be secured and fortified to prevent / slow down a land ivasion and air patrols would need to be flying to prevent airstrikes. Once these are taken care of secession could be announced. |
|
Quoted:
2 main issues would have to be planned for before secession could occur.... 1. Military installations in the seceding states / areas would need to be secured. 2. Border areas would need to be secured and fortified to prevent / slow down a land ivasion and air patrols would need to be flying to prevent airstrikes. Once these are taken care of secession could be announced. Agreed. How was this done during the break up of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had military installations in now seperated states. |
|
Quoted:
The Soviets had military installations in now seperated states. I believe they hadn't been paid for so long, they lost interest and walked away. I've heard stories of entire squadrons of fighters sitting, unattended on their ramps on abandoned bases. TC |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 main issues would have to be planned for before secession could occur.... 1. Military installations in the seceding states / areas would need to be secured. 2. Border areas would need to be secured and fortified to prevent / slow down a land ivasion and air patrols would need to be flying to prevent airstrikes. Once these are taken care of secession could be announced. Agreed. How was this done during the break up of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had military installations in now seperated states. I would post a response but it would sound all moonbatty. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No entitlement programs, low taxes, you keep most of what you make, if you are lazy and don't work you starve, the parasites die off, the productive thrive. I'd move there without even packing my bags. That's true of almost every third world country. What's keeping you from moving? Maybe there are no nationalized entitlement programs, but there sure as hell are billions in international entitlement programs, causing the same loop of despair in each of those countries. |
|
Quoted: I think the most drastic action we could ever possible see is the States having a Constitutional Convention - the legal way to do this is to change the Constitution, which could easily represent dissolution. Are you suggesting that the only way to legally secede is to give your neighboring states a vote on what you do? Methinks that if a region decided that it can do a better job of securing it's borders and regulating itself without Washington, D.C.'s involvement, then it should open up negotiations with it's neighbors while securing the FedGov property within it's borders. I would also suggest that those on a fed paycheck be offered employment before being evicted. Resident FedGov agents could be offered terms of leaving, renouncing citizenship and staying, or summary execution without benefit of Clergy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Soviets had military installations in now seperated states. I believe they hadn't been paid for so long, they lost interest and walked away. I've heard stories of entire squadrons of fighters sitting, unattended on their ramps on abandoned bases. TC This is pertinent. If Obama Care drains our finances AND takes a long time to reimburse people, could people just walk away? Could Federal employees within the states be hired directly by the states so the Federal Government has no internal oversight? Who would tak a Federal job if they do not get paid? The key is limiting the flow of capital out of a sovereign state and to the Federal government, for this capital is needed to pay the local state goverment officials. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No entitlement programs, low taxes, you keep most of what you make, if you are lazy and don't work you starve, the parasites die off, the productive thrive. I'd move there without even packing my bags. That's true of almost every third world country. What's keeping you from moving? Maybe there are no nationalized entitlement programs, but there sure as hell are billions in international entitlement programs, causing the same loop of despair in each of those countries. Nonsense. Cambodia has a GDP of nearly $30 billion, and it's received "international entitlement" of about $3 billion over the last 20 years. That means that international entitlement is about 0.05% of the GDP. You can't say that level of monetary injection to the GDP is the source of the "loop of despair". Cambodia should be a capitalist paradise right now. Don't work? You starve. Have a heart attack without money? You die. What's not to like? It sounds like the arfcom wet dream... |
|
Quoted:
I don't believe that we are capable of the Velvet Divorce. The takers are so invested in the product of the producers that they would riot and "claim their just due." Hell, we have been so programmed that many of us here would have a hard time choosing sides. The chasm is so deep between the ideologies that there is no middle, common ground. I believe that the break up of the US is inevitable. That will be a dark day. 
Imagine what the world would be like with the USA gone... It would be chaos! Who would keep order? Which one of the other superpowers would take control... I really doubt that they would be nice about it like the US. |
|
Quoted:
I honestly think we are polarizing. I honestly think the country has not been this divided since the Civil War. Even for such highly divisive programs like Social Security were passed using a legitimate process in Congress. This health care vote is unprecedented. It is clear that the parts of the country that want to tax and spend are the parts of the country going bankrupt. It is only the highly-populated portions of the country wanted this. Based on districts, even Kommiefornia was against this bill: Map Equally clear, the parts of the country that are are financially solvent are the parts of the country that are liberty-loving. If we split, the freedom-loving country should be financially able to prosper, while the socialist communist country goes bankrupt. How could this be done with a minimum amount of bloodshed? Economically, the new free nation would thrive. Could enough states declaring independence succeed in being recognized as an independent nation? Could states legally impede the flow of money to the Federal Government? Could the states' Attorney Generals file suit against "penalty" taxes instituted by the Federal Government? Could states simply refuse to implement unfunded Federal mandates? How difficult would a Constitutional Convention be to hold? What legal impediments (formidable as they are) would need to be overcome? Even if extremely unlikely, what things would need to happen? Well, you've asked an intelligent question and despite that many here will probably label this as yet another *groan* secession thread, I appreciate intelligent debate. Most would look to history for an answer and what the Confederate States did to finance their defense. For the most part, the CSA used greenbacks too...just not "greenbacks" the proper word. Their strategy for finance was to rely on exports of cotton to other nations, which at the time and even looking back on it was a decent idea. The problem was that the collective states that ultimately constituted the CSA were getting very impatient and most of the elected officials in the state legislatures and in Congress had short fuses. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate about the logistics and supply problems the army faced, but I will say that they were too quick to secede when they didn't have an adequate navy to get those exports to Europe and anyone else who was willing to pay. I remember reading that for some states they had to send it through Texas, to Mexico, and a buyer might be waiting there or they'd have to haul it to a port in Mexico. Given the transportation available then you can see how that wouldn't support an entire nation very easily. Jefferson Davis commented in his book that while he supported secession that he had tried to get states to make better preparations for it or try to hold off for another couple years (again, for preps). To answer such a question today, there are few states that could actually go it on their own, Texas is one example and I don't offer that answer as a jab at any other state or anyone else. I think California, Alaska or Georgia would have good chances too. You have to have the proper geography and access for your new little nation and the will of the people to make it happen. Since there are so few states that could actually make it on their own, it is in the best interests of several states to band together for their collective survival. And to survive, again, you need a good economy and you need money. Those several states would need to make it one of their top priorities to establish a new currency and how it is backed, how it can be redeemed, etc. But I will tell you that if that happened people will demand and expect nothing short of the power of the U.S. dollar. If that can't happen within a reasonable timeframe, it'll start to fall apart eventually. |
|
Quoted: Solvency doesn't matter, the liberal areas are the most populace, therefore control the government especially the military. Secession would go over about as well as it did 150 years ago. Disagree. Everything is different now, especially heavy industry. Today's citizen is dumbed-down, incapable of supporting themselves, and the western and southern states have distinct advantages in hardier individuals, better arms, access to food. If things went this way, any superior technical advantages will soon be lost, re-supply, manufacturing, etc. would soon cease to be effective in keeping up with maintenance needs. |
|
As far as I can tell, the one big glaring mistake the CSA made during the last secession, was firing on Ft. Sumter. If the CSA would have simply "walked" away from Washington DC, then by what peaceful means would DC have used to restore the Union? The side that fires the first shot loses the moral high ground. If Texas were to secede tomorrow, we would be smart to leave US military installations alone and US service members unmolested. Germany and Japan have numerous US bases within their borders and the net result is positive for those countries. Follow the playbook of Gandhi instead of Lee. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Solvency doesn't matter, the liberal areas are the most populace, therefore control the government especially the military. Secession would go over about as well as it did 150 years ago. Disagree. Everything is different now, especially heavy industry. Today's citizen is dumbed-down, incapable of supporting themselves, and the western and southern states have distinct advantages in hardier individuals, better arms, access to food. If things went this way, any superior technical advantages will soon be lost, re-supply, manufacturing, etc. would soon cease to be effective in keeping up with maintenance needs. I would have to agree with this. The guys who know and love guns would be inclined to move to the south. I doubt that the more feminine libtards out there would prove to be a difficult task. As far as the military goes treason would be high and prove to be a very beneficial to the south. Just my opinion even though I haven't given a lot of thought to this so feel free to point out things I might have missed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Solvency doesn't matter, the liberal areas are the most populace, therefore control the government especially the military. Secession would go over about as well as it did 150 years ago. Disagree. Everything is different now, especially heavy industry. Today's citizen is dumbed-down, incapable of supporting themselves, and the western and southern states have distinct advantages in hardier individuals, better arms, access to food. If things went this way, any superior technical advantages will soon be lost, re-supply, manufacturing, etc. would soon cease to be effective in keeping up with maintenance needs. Most of the military also hails from Southern\Western states, and those states have more major military facilities than say the Northeast. Of course, California and Washington are two blue-type states with lots of military installations. |
|
Quoted:
As far as I can tell, the one big glaring mistake the CSA made during the last secession, was firing on Ft. Sumter. If the CSA would have simply "walked" away from Washington DC, then by what peaceful means would DC have used to restore the Union? The side that fires the first shot loses the moral high ground. If Texas were to secede tomorrow, we would be smart to leave US military installations alone and US service members unmolested. Germany and Japan have numerous US bases within their borders and the net result is positive for those countries. Follow the playbook of Gandhi instead of Lee. That might work. How about: 1. Offer the US a buyout of sorts –– accept a set amount of current US debt (be somewhat generous as an incentive) and accept responsibility for the social security of people who come over without asking for a transfer of anything from the "lockbox". 2. Allow US persons to work in Texas for the next five years without penalty because of immediate reciprocal tax treaties with the US –– integrate with the IRS to make sure that Texas is not seen as a tax haven. That should make everyone feel better. 3. Formal non-aggression treaty. 4. US installations will be discussed after 5 years –– no changes. 5. All Texans working for the US Federal government can finish as is and transfer their pension to Texas –– no changes. When the US responds poorly, make it a less good offer –– offer a lower buyout amount. Eventually, cut off the oil and gas for a few weeks and see what happens. The uncertainty should already have gas prices at $4/gallon in the US, so a short cutoff of all of the refineries should spike prices to $6+/gallon. The pressure to "just let the assholes go" might be enough to encourage the Feds to take the easy way out. No one needs to get shot. Nothing needs to get blown up. |
|
Quoted: If Texas went Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri (at least Southern Missouri) would go too. I could see Nebraska and the Dakota's following suit. That big a chunk could survive. You would also pickup Wyoming and Montana and Idaho. and New Mexico. I don't see Nebraska or the Dakotas joining in, from what I've seen they're not cut from the same cloth as the other states you mentioned. New Mexico has suffered for years from Federal encroachment, there is a large movement here to take back the lands the Federal government has stolen. Historically, New Mexico belonged to Texas. ETA I do NOT see anything happening along the lines of Thomas Chittum's Civil War II scenario, other than perhaps the balkanization itself. His judgment was clouded from having fought in Africa, imho. ETAA Those Aztlan pukes won't stand a chance if we're freed of the Federal leash. |
|
Quoted:
If Texas went Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri (at least Southern Missouri) would go too. I could see Nebraska and the Dakota's following suit. That big a chunk could survive. You would also pickup Wyoming and Montana and Idaho. I'd sure run with that, but throw in LA, ARK and MS. Too many good folks to leave out in those places.... HH |
|
Quoted:
I don't believe that we are capable of the Velvet Divorce. The takers are so invested in the product of the producers that they would riot and "claim their just due." Hell, we have been so programmed that many of us here would have a hard time choosing sides. The chasm is so deep between the ideologies that there is no middle, common ground. I believe that the break up of the US is inevitable. This^.......But I dont see civil war like you imagine civil war to be. I believe that it is quite possible that the country will break up into at least three parts, but only after the dollar collapses. I agree that the core ideologies and mindsets of the two sides are so far apart, that there is no possible common ground. When you can no longer reach common ground, there is little recourse. |
|
Quoted:
If Texas went Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri (at least Southern Missouri) would go too. I could see Nebraska and the Dakota's following suit. That big a chunk could survive. You would also pickup Wyoming and Montana and Idaho. I think that a more natural grouping would be Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaluipas, and possibly Louisiana. I just don't know about Arkansas. I think that a lot of the West and Midwest share more culturally with one another. Texas is peculiar –– that whole area is peculiar, even on the Mexican side. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Texas went Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri (at least Southern Missouri) would go too. I could see Nebraska and the Dakota's following suit. That big a chunk could survive. You would also pickup Wyoming and Montana and Idaho. I'd sure run with that, but throw in LA, ARK and MS. Too many good folks to leave out in those places.... SC would most likely join in, too. |
|
the way I see it:
1.bankrupt and/or conservative states refuse/cannot obey certain mandates. 2. the fed cracks down on them- forceful removal from office? I don't know what the fed can do, send the alphabet soup of agencies to take over state functions? 3.state national guard called to defend state rights while the federal government tells them to defend the nation= who knows? 4.blue state national guards sent in to dismantle state government. 5.residents see this as invasion The states would have to start sticking up for themselves. All that being said, I don't see the nation as divided enough to come to that. And I don't see many/any state officials standing up for their citizens like that. |