Which is more silly?

1.  Those petitioning to secede from the US.

2.  Those petitioning to strip citizenship and deport petition signers.

3.  Those petitioning ______________.

Please no arguing or hate just vote or write in vote.  Thank you.  =)

Currently, without a viable third party candidate... My Coin flip goes to #2

IMO, without at least a good 25% of state's population signing it, it means diddly. 25k in today's age is not a significant amount of the population to make me think that anyone other than a few drunk college kids or poor losers wanting attention actually takes it seriously, if even them.

so i guess my answer is #1 is the most silliest.

Let'em secede. They'll have to make do without all government jobs, government funding (Texas receives the most federal funding), government subsidies (ie.- to the oil industry) and they should pay for leasing of US property to drill on for all these generations up to now.

Sorry, there sounded like a bit of argument in there - my vote is for #1.

'Tis a coin flip.  WT's comment about the insignificance of the numbers is worth re-iterating.

I find it interesting commentary that radical elements of the political spectrum have the loudest voices.  Part of me thinks that because they usually become parodies of themselves, they should be galvanizing the middle.  In my mind, this is how democracy should work. But it seems the reality is that they often do more harm than good.

..you didn't really expect us to vote and not say anything, did you?

M57 wrote:

'Tis a coin flip.  WT's comment about the insignificance of the numbers is worth re-iterating.

I find it interesting commentary that radical elements of the political spectrum have the loudest voices.  Part of me thinks that because they usually become parodies of themselves, they should be galvanizing the middle.  In my mind, this is how democracy should work. But it seems the reality is that they often do more harm than good.

..you didn't really expect us to vote and not say anything, did you?

Commentary is fine. I just didn't want people getting all crazy.  =)

As for the impact of radical elements on society. That's surprisingly nothing new in world history. The 1% rule can be pretty easily argued for most historical political situations, and I think modern media agendas may actually be decreasing that percentage just like new strategies and technologies are increasing force multipliers in combat.

It is too late. It's already begun. IT"S HAPPENING. In Union or in Division, we will only know suffering.

Do you recall the Archduke Ferdinand?

http://youtu.be/P6U2ZQ0EhN4

Blackstone wrote:

It is too late. It's already begun. IT"S HAPPENING. In Union or in Division, we will only know suffering.

Do you recall the Archduke Ferdinand?

http://youtu.be/P6U2ZQ0EhN4

Um... Yeah, why? I'm not seeing what you're connecting.

None of the above.  I think it simply reflects a novel way that some have chosen to vent their frustration and is largely an impulse gesture on the part of many facilitated by the ease at which the internet allows participation in such processes.    IMHO, I see only those who would continue to push beyond it's media life cycle as the "extremists" (although that term is so often misapplied for political reasons that it has lost most of it's value to me).

I don't expect the administration to respond or for the movement to gain any momentum.

We should be grateful that Obama was elected.    Based on the media's coverage of the Occupy vs Tea Party movements, I believe that had Mitt Romney won, the media would not only have treated it as a grass-roots uprising worthy of serious consideration, but it would have fanned that flame until the Romney administration issued a preemptive apology for it's term to come and a comprehensive plan that ameliorated and healed the wounds of those driven to secession.

Thingol wrote: Let'em secede. They'll have to make do without all government jobs, government funding (Texas receives the most federal funding), government subsidies (ie.- to the oil industry) and they should pay for leasing of US property to drill on for all these generations up to now.

Sorry, there sounded like a bit of argument in there - my vote is for #1.

Not to mention the fact the U.S. Border patrol would then switch to building a wall to keep out Texans :)

Thingol wrote: Let'em secede. They'll have to make do without all government jobs, government funding (Texas receives the most federal funding), government subsidies (ie.- to the oil industry) and they should pay for leasing of US property to drill on for all these generations up to now.

Regardless of the wisdom or folly of secession, it would be interesting to ponder what the actual pros and cons and feasibility of secession would be.

To start where Thingol left off,  why presume that Texas would be worse off by losing Federal funding or jobs?  Doesn't that presume that Texas receives more from the government than what Texas pays in federal taxes?   Even considering that the government prints and spends more than what it takes in in taxes, it also has a lot of overhead and waste, and given that Texas has the second strongest economy in the U.S. (and 14th in the world), it seems highly unlikely that Texas received more from the federal government than it paid to it in taxes.     I don't have the facts to back that up, but the logic seems as reasonable as presuming they'd lose revenue.  

Regardless, if Texas could keep all the wealth it normally directs to the U.S. government, it is likely to be more efficiently used and directed to the needs of the people of Texas.   

I have no idea what happens to "federal" land located within Texas.  I would have to think that secession would require that that land become owned by Texas.   Whether they have to pay the US government to acquire it, I couldn't say, that seems like a pretty complicated issue based on whether the US government purchased it or grabbed it and what contracts or treaties went with each one. 

Texas would need to create it's own military.   That would be an interesting discussion on all fronts (economic, strategic, political, etc).   I suspect it would quickly redirect funding currently going to it's portion of the U.S. military to beef up it's borders whether that be by completing it's own fence or increasing military strength on the border.   Just a gut feeling, but I suspect Texas would more quickly solve it's border problems freed up from the federal government.

Texas would also have to recreate many of the federal services and agencies currently provided by the government.    Unless the US government workers leave the state, the people to fill those roles are already there.  Recreating that infrastructure in a timely manner seems unfeasible.

Other interesting questions would be:

• would US citizens be likely to migrate into or out of Texas?
• What import/export issues/taxes/tariffs would be created?
• what would be it's political relationship with the U.S., Mexico, and the world?
• How would Texas' immigration policy compare with the U.S.?
• Would Mexico, or it's citizens, increase or decrease pressure to absorb Texas?
• Presuming Texas would  increase oil drilling, how would the U.S. government react?
• If Texas could actually secede, what is the likelihood that other states would follow?

It would be interesting to hear from those who actually live in Texas.   I've gotten the impression that Texan's already have a kind "nationalism" that could serve it well in forming a new country and might be at the root of a Texan being the first to push for secession.   But, I have no clue what the average Texan thinks about this subject.

> Doesn't that presume that Texas receives more from the government than what Texas pays in federal taxes?

You are correct - Texas gets slightly less money from the federal government than they pay to the federal government:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

That is an interesting link Ozy, along with the blogs on the page, beneath the chart. Folks should check it out.

Here is another, related article which also factors in FEMA aid - http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/texas-run-secessionist-guv-has-received-federal-disaster-relief-more-times-any-state

Thingol wrote: That is an interesting link Ozy, along with the blogs on the page, beneath the chart. Folks should check it out.

Here is another, related article which also factors in FEMA aid - http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/texas-run-secessionist-guv-has-received-federal-disaster-relief-more-times-any-state

Given that Texas is the second-largest and second-most populous state in the U.S., it is very likely that if one were to search through all Federal Aid programs, you could find many examples of how Texas is receiving more aid relative to other states. 

Regardless, I don't see how this undermines the argument that, fiscally, Texas might be better off on it's own?  F.E.M.A is funded from the same tax base that funds all other government programs and to which Texas contributes a larger amount than it receives back.    In other words, that F.E.M.A. funding is already factored in to the total federal funding that Texas has received that the chart's Ozyman referenced showed was far less than what they paid into the system.

The blog you referenced said that, since 2001, Texas has received close to 3.4 billion in F.E.M.A. funding.   Based on Ozyman's charts, since 1991, Texas has paid approximately 389 billion more than it has received.  Let's be conservative and say 150 billion of that was overpaid since 2001. 
          
Unless one can make the argument that the Federal Government can do most things far more cost effectively than the states, wouldn't Texas have been better off keeping that extra 150 billion and paying for that 3.4 billion of emergency funding itself?

There seems to be a sense in the blog post that Governor Perry of Texas is being hypocritical or demonstrating chutzpah for requesting aid from the government.  I can see that point if Perry had been critical of government and Texas wasn't paying any taxes, or if he was the governor of a state that received more funding than it paid in taxes.  But, if Texas is paying far more than what they're getting back, wouldn't it be fiscally unwise for him to not at least try and get back some of that money his residents have paid when their state is qualified to receive it?  

Does anybody have good information on the primary Texas exports and imports?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Does anybody have good information on the primary Texas exports and imports?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Texas

Ozyman wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Does anybody have good information on the primary Texas exports and imports?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Texas

I read through that, but it lumps all exports together.  I don't think for the sake of this argument we could assume that all goods shipped from Texan ports are "Texas" exports.

At any rate, the point I was going to make was about diversity of imports and exports.  Right now I think Texas benefits from having a multitude of natural resources that come from other parts of the U.S.  If that is suddenly taken away, it seems like their entire economy would be at the mercy of the price of crude.

What about the economies of Defense? How prepared are they to defend their borders, research, build, and maintain their own defense technologies, etc? ..or will be good enough that everyone gets a gun rack with every truck - and keeps another right next to the coat rack at home?

>Regardless, I don't see how this undermines the argument that, fiscally, Texas might be better off on it's own?

I pay into an insurance policy (for my home and car and stuff) that I have never claimed on. However, collectively everyone that does the same is better off - in case of bad times. 

Does the same argument mean I should stop paying into the pot and I would be better off?

M57 hits the big one, you're no longer part of America's nuclear umbrella, economic machine or social strucure... how long till Canada absorbs texas with it's friendly white hats and oil production?

M57 wrote:

What about the economies of Defense? How prepared are they to defend their borders, research, build, and maintain their own defense technologies, etc? ..or will be good enough that everyone gets a gun rack with every truck - and keeps another right next to the coat rack at home?

 There are 15 military bases in Texas with all the associated spending and the largest single portion of Border patrol spending. You could probably do some research to add up the "official" DOD and Homeland Security spending in Texas, but you can bet it's a lot. Both of which aren't counted towards Texas official federal reimbursement.

When you add it all up Texas receives much more direct and indirect funding than it pays out in taxes. Now will that change if the United States actually raises taxes and cuts spending enough to balance the budget? Who knows.  But, I think it's a moot point since:

A: The % of Texans who would back secession is quite small.

B: We already fought one war over secession, things would have to be catastrofuck (Zombie Apocolypse) wrong in the world for Texas just to walk away from the US.   

=)