https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-u-secessionists-hankering-texit-194835260.html An interesting political position advocated by the Texas Nationalist Movement worthy of review. As has been noted in other articles on Brexit it's going to take two or three years before the UK can actually remove itself from the European Union so let's see what "Texit" would involve. First and foremost there has to be a "balancing of the books" so that all financial considerations are addressed and resolved. Currently the US national debt is pushing $20 trillion and that debt was incurred by all Americans equally. Texas represents about 9% of the US population so it needs to come up with about $1.8 trillion to pay off it's current financial obligation based upon it's proportion of the nation national debt. In 2015 the State of Texas had almost $52 billion in total tax revenue so just to pay off it's portion of the national debt so, based upon the current tax laws of Texas, and using 100% of the taxes collected, it would require over 34 years (not including the interest) to pay off the debt it owes to the US Treasury. Of course that wouldn't be acceptable to Texas because it needs the $52 billion in taxes and can't use any of it to pay off it's financial obligations to the US Treasury and it wouldn't be acceptable to the rest of the United States because the time required to repay the debt Texas owes. The only solution is to raise taxes in Texas and it would be reasonable to expect Texas to pay off it's debt obligation in less than 5 years. That means Texas has to increase tax revenues by about $500 billion a year which represents about a 1000% increase in the taxes paid by Texans to the government. Of course the US Treasury also has to balance the books as well which means a 9% distribution of the US gold reserves but Texas doesn't get any gold until it first pays off it's debt obligation to the US Treasury because that's partial collateral in the debt of Texas. We can also note that Texas loses all of it's US defense contract work so Lockheed Martin is going to relocate to one of the other US states. With that loss goes a lot of revenue to Texas and a lot of jobs. Texas also loses all US government spending which would include Medicare/Medicaid spending in Texas. Bottom line is that the Texas Nationalist Movement doesn't appear to have thought this out very well.
Which is why the Cheetoman is so well liked by the right. His talk of default, and telling creditors what they will accept as payment in full, is a prerequisite to secession. Take the blue states loot, then say it was under duress anyway. After all, Texas only needed that loot, to pay for minority losers. They will give back the minority losers if we want. The tonnage of new guns, will be their throw-weight. WE don't want to have to use them, will be their COMPROMISE. Who says they don't have empathy.
Not that I think it's a good idea, but I think you are giving far too much power to the government. 52 of the Fortune 500 companies are located in Texas and if they broke from the union you would see many more come for their business climate. Also, the USA heavily relies on parts build out of the US already, you think they would DEMAND all the defense contractors leave Texas when they don't do that now? Good luck with that. Not that I think Texit is a good idea, but a lot of your "facts" are barely opinions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't succession what our civil war was about? The way things are today, it might just happen again. Suggestion - hold on to your guns.
Omg why do you guys give this any notice at all? Texas is NOT going to secede from the Union. It's just not going to happen and a few dozen losers with a website aren't going to change that.
Brexit and the End of International Progressive Inevitability "Is it any wonder that citizens of one of the greatest and strongest nations in human history would recoil from an international order that was proving mainly that it could enrich an elite without seeming to lift a finger to preserve the nation’s core values and traditions -- the very things that had made it great and strong? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437147/brexit-and-end-international-progressive-inevitability
A reminder that the traitors to the US Constitution that attempted secessionism in the 1860's were militarily defeated by the United States during the American Civil War. I don't believe that the Texas National Guard can defeat the US Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force that would all be called upon to suppress any insurrection against the US government based upon Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
52 of the top Fortune 500 companies are located in Texas today because Texas is a part of the United States. I would also question how welcome the business climate in Texas would be if Texas has to raise taxes by 1000% to pay off it's portion of the national debt within the reasonable timespan of 5 years. While it can be stated that this increase in Texas taxation is temporary the necessity of Texas to fund it's own Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines for national defense, none of which is has today, would be significant. Additionally it's arguable that all Social Security benefits would be cut off for Texans because Texans would no longer be US citizens. Yes, for financial accounting reasons 9% of the Social Security Trust Fund assets could be used by Texas to offset it's $1.8 trillion obligation to the United States but that would only represents about $225 billion and then Texas would be on it's own when it comes to funding retirement, medical, and disability benefits for about 25% of Texans. Is Texas going to let Grandpa and Grandma, that are too old to work, starve once Texas is not longer a part of the United States? Having worked in the aerospace defense industry the requirement for the primary contractors to be US companies and parts produced within the United States is a part of the DOD acquisition laws. Only once, to my knowledge, has the DOD only purchased one foreign military platform design, the B-57 Canberra medium bomber, and that was an airplane designed in Britain in 1953 and used during the Vietnam War but it was built under license by the Martin Corporation in the United States. I can think of no other weapon system in the US arsenal that was foreign designed and none that have been built in a foreign country and I believe it's because US law, at least since WW II, forbids it. I don't see the US Congress changing that law and Lockheed-Martin and other defense contractors all have manufacturing facilities outside of Texas where they could easily relocate production (and the US government would arguably pick up the relocation costs). There are some components of military equipment that are produced overseas but that's generally been restricted to US arms production designed for overseas sales and those are typically minor components that can easily be produced in the US if necessity dictates. For example the F-35 does use some foreign made components because it's being designed for foreign export. None of the key components for the F-35 are being produced outside of the United States. The F-117, the B-2 bomber and the F-22 fighter that were not designed for export used no foreign made components. Not even the raw materials, with very rare exceptions, used for the F-117, B-2 or F-22 came from foreign sources. I worked on all of those programs and personally know the procurement requirements that prohibited foreign materials and components from being used. The US requirement that all of our major defense systems be built in the United States is a national security issue and that policy is never going to change. We can't risk being involved in a war where the arms or major components that we need are produced in a neutral or potentially hostile country that would stop shipping the necessary arms to the United States. Lockheed- Martin would unquestionably relocate it's US defense contracting business from Texas into the United States because it would otherwise lose that business completely. For example I'm sure that Northrop-Grumman or Boeing would be happy to build the F-35 in the US if Lockheed-Martin refused to relocate the production facilities.
If it's going to be 4 years of Hillary, you could most easily see a Texit 2018. Only 2 years of her nonsense would be enough to spur that on. More states would then follow. Some might say the same for a Trump white house, but I'll take my chances on him. Hopefully he would put the right people in charge. Hillary would obvious just give the important jobs away for political favors regardless of qualifications....Just like Obama did for her when he made her SoS. She proved how dangerous that can be.
Get back to me when Texas has $1.8 trillion to repay the borrowing on behalf of the Texans by the US Congress. They're not going to be allowed to skip out on this debt and expect the American people to pay their bills. BTW - We know how good Trump is as an executive and in the appointment of management teams because he drove four of his corporations into bankruptcy.
That debt is on Obama...Texas didn't ask him to add more to the Nat debt than all previous presidents combined. Texas didn't ask for the Obamacare nightmare which fails more and more everyday. Entitlement spending is at the 50% level now. Half the country is getting some type of help from the Gov......This is Obama's doing, not Texas. Most successful entrepreneurs have had their share of failure, the good ones just keep striving for success like Trump has done over and over.
Deficit spending, that has created the national debt, is a result of Congress failing to collect enough in taxes to fund the expenditures authorized by Congress. In short the almost $20 trillion in national debt that we have today is due to under-taxation where the tax revenues didn't fund Congressional spending and Texans benefited equally from the under-taxation. The national debt really has nothing to do with the President that can't change the tax laws or change the Congressional spending authorization. We can also note that President Obama hasn't changed the criteria for collecting welfare benefits and as the president can't change that criteria. For example the eligibility requirements for collecting SNAP (food stamps) was created in 2003 as I recall under the Bush Administration. Yes, about four times as many American households are collecting SNAP benefits today but that has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama. Of course Republicans like to blame Obama for just about everything negative but it's not because of anything Obama has done or even has the power to do. It's because Obama's black. Of course they'll be blaming Hillary Clinton too because she's a woman.
Many liberals like to try and play the "deficit" word game when it comes to the national debt. It's in their handbook of canned responses. Obama added more to the national debt than all other presidents combined...That is a fact.
All spending authorizations originate in the House of Representatives under the US Constitution and Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since the 2010 elections. Under the US Constitution Congress, not the president, is responsible for deficit spending and the deficits originate in the House of Representatives. It's a pity that more on the "right" don't read the Constitution or understand our Constitutional government.
When he took over the debt was 10.5T, now it's over 18T and will be 20T be the end of his reign of destruction. If he was at least reasonably close to having a balanced budget every year, it wouldn't be this horrific. You'd have to be a fool to not see that he has no concern about how much he added to the Nat debt. It's his job to WORK with Congress on a budget. The President submits his budget to the Pres. You make it sound like Obama submitted some low $$ budget and Congress ran crazy increasing it. It was the other way around. What we ended up with every year was a crazy high budget, that was reduced from the even crazier budget that Obama wanted to have. He's a progressive liberal, that's what they do. Here, read this link. http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the-federal-budget-process
Its not just texas that will be seceding.. it will be 30 other conservative states including the most conservative province of canada.. Alberta...They will secede from more liberal canada These will become THE CONSERVATIVE STATES OF AMERICA and will make wisdom tests for their voters and with that the wise of the world will move there or invest there.. This is NOT like the north and south issue with men against men... this is conservatives against the liberals and men are the conservatives .. especially white with the highest IQ's where the real power lies...These are also the military.. law enforcement..... so no contest...if hillary wins this domino will fall quickly
While I know Republicans hate the facts let's take a moment to look at them starting with facts related to the last budget statistics that are from the fiscal year ending in September 2015. So yes, under the Obama administration the US has had about $600 billion more in deficit spending much of it driven by the fact that former President Bush left the nation in the worst financial situation since the Great Depression. Even while spending slightly more President Obama has limited the increase in the national debt to much less, 56% v 101%, compared to the former Bush Administration. Of course the Bush administration actually comes in second when it comes to increasing the National Debt. Ronald Reagan reigns supreme by a long measure with an increase in the national debt of 186% during his administration. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm In both of the worst cases of increased national debt under a Presidential administration, Reagan (186%) and Bush (101%), the increased debt was due to a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and increased spending by the federal government.
yes texas will secede along with 30 other conservative states Euro Union nation has LOST TRILLIONS with MERKELS Horrendous error.. will she be thrown in jail? each and every day since the vote.. Uk stock has beat france and germany each day with germany the worst each day canada will benefit greatly from this as well as america with trading strong with UK.. same with austrailia for the WEEK after the vote.... UK GAINED 2.6%....all the rest had a minus... France 5.1%.. Germany 5.6%..Spain 8.1%..Italy 9.8%.. Ireland 11.7%...Greece 12.3%... and each of the nordic states in the euro union lost and these will vote to secede from the union and the reason why they lost less.. WHAT a MONSTROUS ERROR by MERKEL...!!! and how the very young voted shows this issue was a wisdom test for voters.. 75% of 18-25 voted to remain in union which means the others more experienced and wiser voted in a landslide to exit and the stock markets proves who are the wiinners and losers and also shows if you let unwise people vote a nation WILL BE THE LOSER.. so soon there will be a world wide wisdom test for voters and no more liberalism.. THIS also will bring te conservative states to separate from the liberals states.... WELCOME TO THE CONSERVATIVE STATES OF AMERICA
A semi-funny story: I moved to Texas in 1986 and one of the first days here I was watching the local TV news. Prince Charles was here and I believe he met with the Texas governor. It was said the governor met with the prince because he was "trying to negotiate better relations between Texas and Great Britain". I knew at that point I had moved to a different country.
Go back an re-read what I wrote. When Obama started it was 10.5T, now it's 18T. That's a fact. It's projected to be just over 20T when he's done. These are facts. He's added more to the Nat debt than all other presidents combined. That is a fact as well. Stop with the deficit number shuffle routine used by all drone-like programmed liberals. Always the same with the blind supporters of the donkey.
The problem is that the dollars cannot be used for legitimate comparative purposes. Only the percentage increase in the national debt, driven by deficit spending, can be used for comparative purposes. By way of analogy a study of IRS tax records found that the top 400 income households in the US, with an average income of $250 million per year, only had a 17% federal income tax rate which is the same tax rate paid by a household with a $90,000/yr income. A household with over $90,000/yr typically pays a higher tax rate than the top 400 income households in the United States. It doesn't matter that the top 400 households paid more in dollars because the tax rate (percentage) is what matters. One way we know this is because taxes are based upon tax rates (percentages) and not imposed in dollar amounts. The same is true of the national debt. It's the percentage increase and not the dollar increase that reflects how much the debt increased under the administration. Of note, had it not been for the Bush era tax cuts and increased unfunded federal spending for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the added prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and the $400 billion in tax cuts under the Obama Stimulus plan then arguably we wouldn't have had any deficit spending between 2002-2015. It was the tax cuts, plus additional spending, that resulted in the deficits and of the two the tax cuts were predominately responsible for the deficits and increased national debt.
