Its Time to Texit.

[PriestTheRunner]

...

This crap almost got you banned sport. You live to push the envelope, but stooping to this insult gets you your last warning.

...

I quit reading at this paragraph. Attacking our host isn’t cool. Your lengthy essay could have stood on its own without the above paragraph throwing down a gauntlet daring a response from the site owner.

Its pretty apparent that I didn't phrase this correctly or am headed in the wrong direction with that comparison. I apologize for insulting you Charles, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or others on this forum. Since it was rather universally understood differently than I was intending, I have removed that section in trying to phrase it differently.

[Jeff B.]

Now, I know Charles may ban me for this or delete this thread, but if he chooses to do so (and that would be his right), but that would make this forum no better than the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and others who are silencing public (appropriate) speech in a public venue. I certainly wouldn't consider this thread as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and it certainly doesn't stoop to the revolting levels of some speech that has been deemed 'protected'. I believe we need to have a discussion on Texit and we need to have it now, despite what those 'on the other side' may see or think when they watch this forum. I don't want us to stoop as low as the left. Dozens on here have decried such actions from facebook, it would be a shame if we repeated them. Though, if Charles wants to remove this from texaschlforum, it would be his right.

I quit reading at this paragraph. Attacking our host isn’t cool. Your lengthy essay could have stood on its own without the above paragraph throwing down a gauntlet daring a response from the site owner.

I did skim through the entire document and in general agree... I don't think something like this will transpire without a severe economic dislocation that causes the Fed.Gov to be unable to respond everywhere it's needed. What might cause such an event is open to conjecture.

In regards to this site, Charles as the Owner and host, I think you were rude and antagonistic. It's been made clear that this is not a site for hashing over and stirring up political issues. The focus is on the concealed carry and IMO, a great deal of leeway is allowed. That said, I'm surprised the post was left for discussion. Despite having some strong feelings about the state of our once Nation, I'll continue to respect this forum and not go down that road.

Just my opinion....

Jeff B.

[J.R.@A&M]

In other words, if ALL Texas dollars were kept in Texas, we would have a 100-120 Billion Dollar surplus to lower Texas taxes and keep in Texan’s pockets[/b].

The potential error here is that the calculation may ignore a lot of other "overhead" government obligations, e.g., defense, currency stabilization, R&D, etc. that are not reflected in federal transfers to individual states, but that the latter do benefit from. If Texas had to take on all these additional overhead costs, it changes the calculation.

Further, some chunk of what Texas individuals send away in Federal tax collections are taxes on income that is federally derived, e.g., salaries paid to military folks stationed in Texas, grants/contracts paid to contractors, etc. Taking that out of your equation also changes the calculation.

[J.R.@A&M]

Third Point:
To those of you who think Texas wouldn’t survive on its own, here are some surprising details:
~ Texas has its own water

Not really. Texas shares the Ogallalla with four states. Texas shares the Rio Grande with two states and Mexico. Texas shares the Pecos, Red and Sabine Rivers with neighboring states. Much internal flood control and dam construction, including the Brazos and Colorado basins, is subsidized by the U.S. Army COE.

[J.R.@A&M]

Third Point:
To those of you who think Texas wouldn’t survive on its own, here are some surprising details:
~ Texas would have between the 7th and the 10th ranked economy worldwide
~ Texas has its own, fully independent electrical grid
~ Texas surpasses Saudia Arabia in oil exports, and provides ¼ of the United States (minus Texas) oil.
~ Texas is 6th in wind-energy production
~ Texas is home to 51 of the Fortune 500 companies

This "owner-operator" viewpoint is oversimplified. The State doesn't own all these resources and industries -- private entities do. Who knows what those entities would do if Texas was separate from the U.S.? I don't, but I wouldn't just assume that everything would be/cost the same as it did before. I wouldn't assume that the State's economic performance would necessarily be the same. It's one thing when companies, executives, workers, etc. just relocate to a different state -- perhaps more difficult if it were a different country. Too many questions for easy extrapolation.

[J.R.@A&M]

In other words, if ALL Texas dollars were kept in Texas, we would have a 100-120 Billion Dollar surplus to lower Texas taxes and keep in Texan’s pockets[/b].

The biggest potential error is to assume that independent Texians would continue to benefit from a relatively stable currency and financial markets in a post-Texit world.

Think what you want about the Federal Reserve and the dollar. The relevant comparison here is not the U.S. dollar now-versus-then. It is the U.S. dollar-versus-Turkish lira, and/or U.S. overnight borrowing costs (2%) versus Turkey (19%). (Pick any other country that you want... the point is the same).

If Texas were an independent country, your and my wealth would be more at risk, I think, than it is now. I am as proud of my State as anybody, but the forex and bond markets could not care less. That is the one thing I can agree on with James Carville (re: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-jd0q9r1w).

[Instructor_Earl]

There's only one state I'd like to see secede and it ain't Texas.

Good riddance to Maryland and its tumor.

[philip964]

Considering there is a post thread right now about Beto being elected Senator, Texas leaving the US is potentially premature.

In addition any state wishing to leave would need to assume it’s share of the Federal debt.

[PriestTheRunner]

In other words, if ALL Texas dollars were kept in Texas, we would have a 100-120 Billion Dollar surplus to lower Texas taxes and keep in Texan’s pockets[/b].

The potential error here is that the calculation may ignore a lot of other "overhead" government obligations, e.g., defense, currency stabilization, R&D, etc. that are not reflected in federal transfers to individual states, but that the latter do benefit from. If Texas had to take on all these additional overhead costs, it changes the calculation.

Further, some chunk of what Texas individuals send away in Federal tax collections are taxes on income that is federally derived, e.g., salaries paid to military folks stationed in Texas, grants/contracts paid to contractors, etc. Taking that out of your equation also changes the calculation.

Considering 'Overhead' obligations, yes there are some that are not accounted for in our current spending. We do, however, have all of our own military forces at present under the Texas banner. One really should be questioning whether we need a standing military as large as our own when the founding fathers intended for us to not even have a standing army. Much less that we should spend 58% of discretionary spending on defense. Current defense spending is 598.5 Billion, annually. You are paying for that. That is nearly $2000 per year, per person. Family of five, that is $10,000 each and every year. Do we need spending that high?

And if Texas were to spend a fraction of that on actual preparedness instead of an endless chain of ever-more-expensive technology, we would be perfectly capable of defense.

Also, the military spending has been addressed above. It is the smallest segment of the Texas workforce categories.


(FYI: Not hating on the military guys around here. You guys are the reason we can sleep safely at night. But pretty much everyone in the military and outside of it can look at the top brass' decisions and see massive amounts of waste. Sometimes to the detriment of our soldiers (ahem killing the very viable A-10, ahem). My point isn't that we need to call everyone home (thats not what I believe), it is that there does not seem to be a need to spend as much as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the UK and Japan COMBINED.)

Third Point:
To those of you who think Texas wouldn’t survive on its own, here are some surprising details:
~ Texas has its own water

Not really. Texas shares the Ogallalla with four states. Texas shares the Rio Grande with two states and Mexico. Texas shares the Pecos, Red and Sabine Rivers with neighboring states. Much internal flood control and dam construction, including the Brazos and Colorado basins, is subsidized by the U.S. Army COE.

Granted it is an oversimplification, but we are not an importer of water. That was more my point.

Third Point:
To those of you who think Texas wouldn’t survive on its own, here are some surprising details:
~ Texas would have between the 7th and the 10th ranked economy worldwide
~ Texas has its own, fully independent electrical grid
~ Texas surpasses Saudia Arabia in oil exports, and provides ¼ of the United States (minus Texas) oil.
~ Texas is 6th in wind-energy production
~ Texas is home to 51 of the Fortune 500 companies

This "owner-operator" viewpoint is oversimplified. The State doesn't own all these resources and industries -- private entities do. Who knows what those entities would do if Texas was separate from the U.S.? I don't, but I wouldn't just assume that everything would be/cost the same as it did before. I wouldn't assume that the State's economic performance would necessarily be the same. It's one thing when companies, executives, workers, etc. just relocate to a different state -- perhaps more difficult if it were a different country. Too many questions for easy extrapolation.

One can always assume worst-case scenario. But are all 51 of those largest companies really going to pack up and leave? They might more their headquarters, but considering Texas is already the most business-friendly state, it seems more likely that an independent Texas with a lower tax rate would attract more business, not less.

In other words, if ALL Texas dollars were kept in Texas, we would have a 100-120 Billion Dollar surplus to lower Texas taxes and keep in Texan’s pockets[/b].

The biggest potential error is to assume that independent Texians would continue to benefit from a relatively stable currency and financial markets in a post-Texit world.

Think what you want about the Federal Reserve and the dollar. The relevant comparison here is not the U.S. dollar now-versus-then. It is the U.S. dollar-versus-Turkish lira, and/or U.S. overnight borrowing costs (2%) versus Turkey (19%). (Pick any other country that you want... the point is the same).

If Texas were an independent country, your and my wealth would be more at risk, I think, than it is now. I am as proud of my State as anybody, but the forex and bond markets could not care less. That is the one thing I can agree on with James Carville (re: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-jd0q9r1w).

I guarantee that the markets would be unstable, at first. Just like Brexit. Markets absolutely hate uncertainty. However, with a gold-backed currency (long term) and the US dollar as the adopted currency (short term), currency variation wouldn't be a unsurpassable problem. We wouldn't just hit a switch and start printing out Texas Dollars in a fiat system. The logical thing is to use the money already in circulation until a viable currency (and currency program) can be formed. There are several countries that already use the US dollar as their currency, even with the US' permission. (Though I wouldn't want to be hitting my retirement date the day before a Texit either, but thats life).

As far as investing goes, I image corporate bonds would bounce back quick (just like brexit) and Treasury bonds would be somewhat slower (just like brexit). Any corporations that have no assets in Texas and do not use Texas as a market would be only slightly affected (just like brexit). The world wouldn't stop turning. People would go to work the next day. Once the uncertainty is gone, stability would arrive as it always does in larger markets.

[PriestTheRunner]

Considering there is a post thread right now about Beto being elected Senator, Texas leaving the US is potentially premature.

In addition any state wishing to leave would need to assume it’s share of the Federal debt.

So tackle the debt now while it is still a minor 65,000$ per person or wait for the ship to sink? You think our current .gov is going to reduce spending to below taxation? Eventually, something, will trigger a default. I don't want to be strapped to the titanic when that happens.

Also, there were more votes for Cruz in the primary than all democrat's votes combined. The Beto thing seems to be liberal-spurred hogwash. Remember how Hillary was a shoe-in? But I will still get out and vote in November.

[srothstein]

I think that Texas cannot secede from the union, no matter what the people in it want. There are many good reasons to secede and many reasons to believe that there is an economy that could survive and sustain itself. There is little doubt in my mind that when Texas is its own republic again, it will succeed and survive.

But there is a small matter of whether or not the US will allow Texas to secede. And I do not think it will. Remember all of those economic facts that say Texas can survive without the US? There is an inverse question of whether or not the US can survive without Texas.I believe that there are strong indications that the US would not survive a peaceful exit by Texas. And this leads me to believe that the US would not let us leave.

There is another point about that to consider. Whether I agree or not, there is a SCOTUS decision (White) that says there is no way for any state to leave the union. In the words of Chief Justice Chase, the union is indissoluble. The US Congress is bound by this case and therefore cannot give us permission to leave.

Which brings about the question of if the US military would be used to enforce the union. I believe it would be used with very little restraint (maybe no nukes, but any conventional weapon). And there have been enough indicators that this has been considered. Do you remember the famous 29 Palms survey? Yes, they would shoot on us. If you doubt this one, remember Kent State. And then remember how vicious the last war between the states that seceded and those that remained turned out to be.

So, I propose that we table any talk of seceding from the US. It just ain't going to happen, IMHO. But we can make plans for what we will do when the US collapses under its own weight and the weight of the socialism that it has moved towards. When the US does collapse, it will break apart and Texas will be on its own.

I am actually hoping this doesn't happen, but I am unfortunately thinking it will. If it must happen, I pray that it will happen while I am alive and young enough to fight in it so that my children and grandchildren will not have to.

[apostate]

.

[oljames3]

Seems to me that the Constitutional question of seccession was settled in 1865. My oath to support and defend that Constitution has no experation date.

[Grundy1133]

Seems to me that the Constitutional question of seccession was settled in 1865. My oath to support and defend that Constitution has no experation date.

But if your government who has sworn to uphold that constitution starts to betray it, I'd say at that point your oath is as good as null and void. I'm all for the constitution, but when our leaders who have sworn to protect and follow the constitution start picking and choosing parts they want to uphold and others they want to infringe upon, it's time to do something about it. just my 2 cents.

[bblhd672]

Seems to me that the Constitutional question of secession was settled in 1865.

Yeah, just like SCOTUS decided abortion and gay marriage were settled. Many disagree with SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White. Even that decision left an opening:
"In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

My oath to support and defend that Constitution has no expiration date.

Yep, from both foreign and domestic enemies. The domestic list seems to grow larger daily, to the point that the internal threat to the Constitution is larger now than external threats.