TexasCHLforum.com

Yall ready yet?

Ruark wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:08 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:07 am ...

Federal funding grants are, in general, generated to fund federal projects, in alignment with the fundamental concept of "if the government requires it, they have to fund it."

While I agree with everything you have said, I think you are missing my main point. It is not legally viable for the federal government to require things not authorized to them in the Constitution. Anything not authorized to them falls to the states. Education should (and does) fall to the states for provision and enforcement. As such, it should be illegal for the federal government to earmark (or more accurately hold fiducially hostage) funds for specific purposes.

I think South Dakota vs Dole was incorrectly decided. As well as some other cases before it (such as Wickard vs Filburn).
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educa ... dole-1987/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It is not withing the federal government's authority to have anything to do with education and as such they have no authority to provide specific funding towards any related program.

Ruark wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:08 pm And with Texit, it would all vanish instantly.

While I think these programs are beneficial to society, it should be up to Texas and our representatives how taxes for education be spent. If Texit happened next year and we wanted to keep all of these programs, we could do so while being financially stable and reducing taxation by about 25%-30%. Those programs wouldn't instantly be gone, but they would instantly be decided by Texans instead of the US as a whole.

Also, don't doubt that democrats want Texit as well in decent numbers.
This Rueters polling from 2014 (a bit old) shows 30.1% support for Texit from Democrats alone. It shows 40.2% support from Republicans.
If every democrat voted against Texit, it would likely never pass, but there are significant number of them open to and actively supporting the idea.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/T ... psed/false

Ruark wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:22 pm It's a great idea, but so is growing wings and flying. Not going to happen. The loss of federal dollars would be devastating. They're more pervasive than you think.

Except for every federal tax dollar we send to DC, we get .66 cents worth of federal dollars back. If that every becomes widespread knowledge then expect the equation to change.

I would like to question, however, where on earth the federal government gets permission to be involved in an intra-state data/phone provider or has permission to have absolutely anything to do with education (aside from enforcing the constitution upon the states through the 14th amendment, that bit is legally justified...). But as far as saying X-program gets these dollars and Y-program gets these, explain to me the federal authority to take such actions? All of it is illegal.

I get that the federal fingers are stuck down in almost every aspect of funding/grants/business, but that is a problem- not a feature. If Texans ever realize that they could support all of those programs at 2/3rd the taxation dollars taken, expect more people to start questioning the status quo.

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:59 pm The best thing about Texit is that we could close the borders and keep liberal idiots from coming here.

Or even better, prevent out-of-state dollars from flowing in as campaign contributions. Why the heck can a liberal in New York send 5,000 to Beto in Texas? Why does said liberal have permission or authority to interfere in a Texas election? You wanna talk about collusion, talk about that!

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:40 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:19 pm 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.

And we would also get our share of existing military equipment and other assets that debt helped to buy like the strategic oil reserve, etc., right?

Also, one minor correction to a post up-thread. The US Postal Service is not owned or operated by the Federal government. I don't know why we would assume that it would cease operations in an independent Texas, but if it chose to do so and sell off it's assets here, I'm sure a successor would emerge.

Considering that FedEx and UPS are both cheaper and more reliable than USPS, it isn't a stretch to say that a privatization wouldn't be a bad thing. Either way, if we are gonna buy our share of the debt, shouldn't we get our share of the assets too? Or is the US AG gonna roll down main street and demolish the local post office?

Federal assets don't disappear in a Texit, they are rightfully purchased. (Though, considering the ethics of most recently-revealed top level staff, I wouldn't doubt that a printer or two may go missing )

Grundy1133 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:49 pm

oljames3 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:04 am 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.

I'm still trying to figure out how NSA spying doesn't violate the 4th amendment, but that's just me.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:19 pm 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.

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:28 am

PriestTheRunner Finally, back on taxation… Texas sends about 265 Billion dollars annually to the Federal government, but only gets back about 162 Billion. [b wrote: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.)

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:36 am

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:01 pm 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.

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:46 am

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:01 pm 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.

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:04 pm

PriestTheRunner Finally, back on taxation… Texas sends about 265 Billion dollars annually to the Federal government, but only gets back about 162 Billion. [b wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:40 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:01 pm ...

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

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:01 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:01 pm ...

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.

OneGun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:33 pm The replacement of the services provided by the Federal government would not be a simple task. Take something like the postal service. While many people pay bills electronically, many people that live paycheck to paycheck still pay bills by mail because they don't have a banking relationship with a financial institution. Many people depend on the postal service and check cashing services. In addition, replacing the Medicare would be extremely hard. While Obamacare was a disaster for the general population, many people over 65 depend on Medicare. That replacement cost alone would be extremely difficult for senior citizens with health problems to afford if they weren't able to work because of their health. Could Texas absorb the cost of providing a Medicare replacement? I have my doubts given the magnitude of the costs. Finally, there are the numerous details that would need to be ironed out to establish trade, currency, defense, citizenship, diplomacy, credit, etc. if Texas became independent.

You are very right that there would be a wide array of details that would need to be ironed out. Thats why Texit would be a years-long process.

Regarding Medicare, Texas already administers the program in Texas. We are already running it. We already have documentation on program costs and since Texas is a 40% donor state (giving more than receiving) we have the money in hand at the current levels of taxation.

Now, considering how much sand is in the gears of the current medicare / medicaid system, a Texas-only system with Texas only dollars presents an opportunity to clean out the system and reduce spending in wasted areas (and possibly improve the system in other areas). I'm extremely certain that the federal dollars come with a price tag of tens of thousands of regulations regarding allotments, approved use, required services, etc. etc. that may or may not represent Texas' interests. Texit is an opportunity to remove the vast majority of that.

OneGun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:33 pm In simple terms, the idea of being an independent country is appealing, but the devil is in the details. Also, with Texas' major cities being Liberal Democrat enclaves, I wonder if many people in Texas would really back a Texit. I know, a referendum would answer that question. But the referendum would not present all of the details.

That is also a good point, but we wouldn't ever know unless we had a vote on it. The most recent numbers have a pro-Texit majority of 54% of Republicans, 50% of Independents and 35% of Democrats. Considering the current distribution in Texas: (52.2% R, 43.2% D and 4.6% I based on 2016 Pres), that puts the vote at 46% Leave and 54% Stay. Yes, that vote is still a 'stay' vote, but considering this is based on 2016 numbers and the Democrats pro-leave side has arguably gained ground, it isn't a stretch to say that a vote needs to be had.

Also, all of the above is based on the presidential race. Independence votes typically garner 80%+ on voting as opposed to the last presidential race numbers of around 58%. It is difficult to tell how that would swing the numbers.

OneGun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:33 pm One lesson I took away from the Brexit vote, is that many people voted for the concept of Brexit, but that many people did not appreciate the consequences of Brexit. My firm has an office in London. Many people in that office are from other countries and may have to leave Great Britain because of Brexit. Many people from Great Britain that work in other parts of the EU will have to relocate back to Great Britain. The EU and Great Britain have not resolved the trade issues.

Yes, the citizenship and visa issues would need to be worked out. It seems that visas have been part of the larger economic and trade talks over there, which is considerably slower. However, if we were to examine the pitfalls of Brexit, the biggest ones would likely be avoided, or at least they know whats coming.

OneGun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:33 pm I believe that if the people that voted for Brexit were presented with all of the details, consequences, changes, etc. that goes along with Brexit, the results of the referendum would have been much different.

Those are just my thoughts.

|I'm not sure that they weren't. All of the details and consequences involved is necessary in untangling the mess that being in the federation caused. Divorces are messy. But the fact that it would be messy is more of a point that it needs to happen than not. The mess is being caused by the extreme amounts of overreach currently exhibited by the Federal government. It shouldn't be messy because they are not supposed to be involved in nearly anything they are currently doing. But considering both parties have long since given up restraint in expanding federal influence and power, it'll only get more tangled from here.

Grundy1133 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:11 pm while it all sounds good on paper you have to think about (1) import/exporting, (2)aid that the govt has been giving businesses/people like social security and medicare/medicaid (not sure how those work tbh) food stamps housing etc etc... and you have to think about TX from a (3)military stand point. do we really have enough fire power to stand against the US if trump decided to just be like "They wanna leave? blow em up!" I'm sure tons of people would love the idea of leaving the US but in reality the way things are now, it just wouldn't work... Texas could probably support itself just from the oil we're sitting on but there are a TON of differnt things we (as a state) would have to consider before making a rash decision l ike that. personally, i would love if Texas was independent. Do I think it would be wise to attempt it. No.

1- Importing and exporting is a valid point, but we already have Texans doing those federal jobs. Yes, in the process of a Texit we would have to work out trade deals (the exact same thing the UK is doing right now) but the good news for us is that if we wanted, we just just adopt the World Trade Organizations tarriff tables and be done with it. We would be a net exporter overnight overall, and an extremely high net exporter of oil. Oil access is actually one of the driving factors in keeping a Texit peaceful.

2- Texas already runs all of the welfare programs. Food Stamps, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (aka Welfare)), Medicare and Medicaid, Temporary Housing, etc. are ALL currently administered by Texas using predominantly Texas dollars. I believe those programs have a 50/50 split Federal to State dollars (but I would have to check). And since we send more to DC than we get back (by 60% or so), then it would be relatively easy for Texas to foot the bill if we kept Taxes the same.

3- Maybe, maybe not. The exact determination of a shooting war and civil war would be pretty much impossible to predict. It would be a nightmare though. But the thought of forcing Texas to stay in the event of a proper and democratic vote to leave is a political non-starter for the reasons listed above.

Jusme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:56 pm PTR,
It it obvious that you have spent a lot of time, and effort to not only research, your information, but to put your conclusions, into a readable form.
While the argument, for secession, is compelling, the fact remains, continuing,to stay a part of the USA, is, and would be, better, for Texas. The transition, from State, to independent, country, requires, a huge investment, in resources, that would quickly deplete, the assumed, surplus, you for see, in your thesis.
Not to mention, the fact, that trade with other countries, icluding, the US, is not a foregone conclusion.
One often overlooked feature, of the secession, or "Texit" is what happens to the numerous, military bases, which bring in untold dollars, in military salaries alone? Also, what incentives would be offered, to corporations, and their employees, to suddenly become " foreign" to the US?

Lastly, while your opinion, is well thought out, and may have validity, to postulate, beforehand, that if the founder, or moderators, decide to delete the thread, is akin, to the actions, of Facebook, or Twitter, to me, is very insulting. This is one of the best places, on the internet, to express opinions, and as long as they don't personally attack someone's, race, religion, or other classification, have been allowed to stay. You are fully entitled to your position, and others are just as entitled to disagree with it, so, and this is just my opinion, don't denigrate the site, or it's moderators, to try to bully them, into accepting it. JMHo

Firstly, I address the number and economic influence of US Federal workers above. They are the smallest segment of the workforce in Texas. Last I saw, they account for about 1.5% of Texas workers. Also, If Texas were to keep taxation at exactly the same levels, it would be possible to replace federal workers for Texas workers on a 1:1 ratio. Also, Assuming a peaceful Texit occurs, the rollout of removing all (or some) of the US military installations could take well over a decade. In the event of a peaceful Texit, the US would not want to compromise its own security for the same of pulling the bases out when the US regularly has bases on foreign soil and has typically leased the land for the base and peacefully coexisted. We are currently doing this with Germany, South Korea, Japan, Honduras, The Philippines, Canad (I'm pretty sure), Egypt, and others. And those are only the ones I can remember off the top of my head. It is completely normal for the US to have bases on foriegn soil. As such, it isn't like they would just pack up and move overnight.

Secondly, my statements regarding Charles and the forum were not intended to be negative. They are, however, in response to direct statements by Charles and others on the older threads regarding Texit. As such, I wanting to point out that comparison as, the way I see it, if this thread is removed then we are no better than facebook when it comes to suppressing content as long as it remains appropriate.

C-dub wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:45 pm



IBTL

Ya I know. The most recent thread I could find was 2016, but I'm sure this has been discussed to death here and on other forums.

That fact of the matter is if a vote were held tomorrow, I'm pretty sure most would vote "Yes" over "No". That's a pretty big deal. It is also pretty disgusting how the vote has been prevented time and again through typical politics.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:43 pm I have to ask .... were you inspired by Bobby Akart's novel "Texas Strong"?

Nope. But I will add it to the reading queue if you suggest!

Texas vs White. I know someone is going to bring it up. The issue is the decision itself seems rather terrible to my non-Lawyered eyes. If you have not read it in full, it is here but it is rather disappointing as there seem to be several contradictions within the majority opinion that (to this day) have not been explained.

For example, Chief Justice Chase defined a state as “"State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organised under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” But then turns around and immediately states that Texas never left the Union and never ceased to be a state. If Texas (in succession) was a ‘noticed’ idea of people, territory and government with a constitution and the will of the people, a Seceded Texas checks all those boxes. How then was Texas (in secession) not it’s own “State”? The opinion then goes on to state that Texas “was controlled by a government hostile to the United States”, so the very SCOTUS that admits the existence of another government (which clearly held the territory of Texas) is recognized. If the state of Texas- in order to be a state of the Union needed: (1) people, (2) territory, (3) government and (4) a constitution and 2 of those 4 were absent, how did it exist as a state of the union? The answer is that it did not exist as a state of the union.
All of that is ignoring the fact that at the same time the US congress was enacting bills left and right to ‘Re-Admit States to the Union’. If they never left, then why on earth would the US legislature need to readmit them? There are obvious and blatant contradictions in the law as it was written and this majority opinion, whereas the SCOTUS’ job is to recognize the legislature.

All of this is beside the fact that Texas vs. White has already been overruled. Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885) overrules the main reason for White, and doesn’t list exceptions. As such, considering the predominate reason for White’s existence is gone, and the weakness behind the remaining part (if any).
There are tons of good readings on why Texas vs. White is invalid, from people much smarter than myself. Here are some:
On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White By Cory Genelin
And a good one from Constituting America.

Finally, if any of you guys feel compelled to help, I welcome it. PM me and I will add you to my contact list for different things you can do. One of the biggest things you can do is call your state-level representatives and discuss Texit with them. Why you think it is a good idea and that you expect their support if a floor vote comes to fruition. In order to keep from sounding like I’m just peddling a book, I would recommend you check “Texit” out of your local library and give it a read. It is online and in all major bookstores if you prefer to buy, and if anyone on here legitimately can’t afford a copy, I have a few extras that I would be willing to send if you PM me.

You can look up your state reps with this link.
Please know that this may change after the election this November and be sure to contact your new representatives as well. Much of the work of the legislative session actually occurs immediately before the sessions as the reps line up and select the bills they want to chase in our very brief legislative method. As such, contacting now (if you care to do so) is actually more helpful than contacting later.