If the other larger population states (largest income tax supporters) got on board the feds couldn’t fuck with anyone. They probably wouldn’t even be effective with using military force if this were to happen either.
[/quote]
To go along with theme of discussion,what exactly happens to military forces…considering transient nature. Are full-time military troops withdrawn and we just have to restablish reserve military?
I know if that were the case,where I live now would pretty much be a ghost town…again.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now all that governor has to do is tell the citizens of Texas to quit paying income taxes.
That’s what I’m waiting for… oh please oh please oh please. I’ll start a job search out there if that happens.
We should keep this particular discussion alive. There are things that would have to be worked though.
Would the 10th keep the feds from arresting anyone while in the state of TX.
What happens if an individual not paying taxes leaves the state?
What happens to a business, wanting to do business outside of TX, if they do not pay taxes?
What happens to tax paying businesses aiding non-taxpaying businesses in tranport of goods or services?
What happens to tax paying businesses that refuse to garnish a non-tax paying individuals salary?
This is an interesting idea but you would almost certainly need the support of a majority of states to nulifing any federal backlash. Basically you need a bunch of state gov’ts willing to put their national politicians in a possition where they either vote for smaller gov’t or send non-compliant constituents to jail.
If we had enough state gov’ts and individuals willing to do this, we would already have a smaller gov’t.
1)If a state gov’t is conservative enough to do this, they probably already have national representation that is voting for smaller gov’t.
2)If a state has enought constituents willing to do what is necessary to make this effective, they probably already have national representation that is voting for smaller gov’t.
So again it comes down to the voting public. I am afraid this gets us no closer to small gov’t. But it should provide for an intesting discussion.[/quote]
odds are, the local police and state sheriffs would helping the feds, they know who pays the bills.
local and state police in cali routinely assist narco agents in busting med pot grow houses and distribution centers, despite the fact theyre doing nothing illegal under cali law.
its something that gets brought up a lot here, would the military and cops ect be on our side if there was a revolution or shit hit the fan?
katrina was a pretty big indicator in my mind that they would not.
If the other larger population states (largest income tax supporters) got on board the feds couldn’t fuck with anyone. They probably wouldn’t even be effective with using military force if this were to happen either.
To go along with theme of discussion,what exactly happens to military forces…considering transient nature. Are full-time military troops withdrawn and we just have to restablish reserve military?
I know if that were the case,where I live now would pretty much be a ghost town…again.
[/quote]
Well, If I were Texas I would kick out the Feds and reclaim the military bases…there’s lots of them there.
Actually, the town you live in would go back to being productive instead of dumping money down the drain to support something that ultimately does not contribute to the “real” economy. Besides, there would be a huge capital infrastructure left where the military bases were – I am sure it could be put to use doing something good though I don’t know what.
Well, If I were Texas I would kick out the Feds and reclaim the military bases…there’s lots of them there.
[/quote]
Dude…are you not familiar with how the civil war started? This would be the perfect excuse for military action. If they could find some way to do this without force, maybe.
[quote]
Actually, the town you live in would go back to being productive instead of dumping money down the drain to support something that ultimately does not contribute to the “real” economy. Besides, there would be a huge capital infrastructure left where the military bases were – I am sure it could be put to use doing something good though I don’t know what.[/quote]
Yeah, but what about the tittie bars?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Dude…are you not familiar with how the civil war started? This would be the perfect excuse for military action. If they could find some way to do this without force, maybe.[/quote]
They couldn’t take the whole of Texas with out actual support from Texans. Besides most of the bases in TX are not tactical in nature but rather for training purposes. The TX guard would be able to take care of it with the help of private militia-men. It is as simple as closing off all the roads to the military bases and starving them into surrender – while allowing people that want to leave that ability.
There are other logistical tactics that could be used too with out firing a single bullet.
Well considering it is usually military spouses who do the dancing the clubs would probably have to go back to hiring actual hot chicks…win!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Dude…are you not familiar with how the civil war started? This would be the perfect excuse for military action. If they could find some way to do this without force, maybe.
They couldn’t take the whole of Texas with out actual support from Texans. Besides most of the bases in TX are not tactical in nature but rather for training purposes. The TX guard would be able to take care of it with the help of private militia-men. It is as simple as closing off all the roads to the military bases and starving them into surrender – while allowing people that want to leave that ability.
There are other logistical tactics that could be used too with out firing a single bullet.
[/quote]
I am pretty sure they did precisely this leading up to the civil war. Only they would feed them.
This is starting to sound more like action to sucede than protection of 10th ammendment rights.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I am pretty sure they did precisely this leading up to the civil war. Only they would feed them.
This is starting to sound more like action to sucede than protection of 10th ammendment rights.
[/quote]
Yes, but it all comes down to how the fed would react. If the fed disregards the 10th Amendment it is as good as breaking a contract and TX would have no other choice than to secede. To do otherwise would empower the fed even more.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I just though of something…what if TX decided it wanted to go to a commodity backed currency?
There is no way the fed could stop people from trading with Texans if individuals outside of the state wanted to.[/quote]
Interesting idea. Wonder if it is legal. Are you talking about creating Texasomelians to use as currency for all pay and trade?
Not sure how that would work. I doubt I could get out of paying taxes by having my UK-based company pay me in british pounds. I think you still have to provide fair market value to pay taxes on it. Same with stock options.
Well, If I were Texas I would kick out the Feds and reclaim the military bases…there’s lots of them there.
Dude…are you not familiar with how the civil war started? This would be the perfect excuse for military action. If they could find some way to do this without force, maybe.
Actually, the town you live in would go back to being productive instead of dumping money down the drain to support something that ultimately does not contribute to the “real” economy. Besides, there would be a huge capital infrastructure left where the military bases were – I am sure it could be put to use doing something good though I don’t know what.
Yeah, but what about the tittie bars?
[/quote]
If the other larger population states (largest income tax supporters) got on board the feds couldn’t fuck with anyone. They probably wouldn’t even be effective with using military force if this were to happen either.
To go along with theme of discussion,what exactly happens to military forces…considering transient nature. Are full-time military troops withdrawn and we just have to restablish reserve military?
I know if that were the case,where I live now would pretty much be a ghost town…again.
Well, If I were Texas I would kick out the Feds and reclaim the military bases…there’s lots of them there.
Actually, the town you live in would go back to being productive instead of dumping money down the drain to support something that ultimately does not contribute to the “real” economy. Besides, there would be a huge capital infrastructure left where the military bases were – I am sure it could be put to use doing something good though I don’t know what.[/quote]
I don’t know,Fort Hood employs about 12,000 civilian and contractors…with an economic impact of $10 billion. Its pretty much is the economic infrastructure of Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood area.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Have you been to Fort Hood/Killeen?
How many troops that are deployed in Iraq right now from 1stCav and 4ID are going to come back home and start killing their neighbors?[/quote]
Yes,soldiers have killed others here(even other soldiers)…we have soldiers that sell drugs…we have soldiers that burglarize/commit home invasions. I can keep going.
I know how you view soldiers as “murderers” and all…but I think its fair to say that they’re just a cross section of our population and commit crimes at about the same rate as civilians. But keep in mind that Killeen has 5th highest crime rate in TX.
There are so many factors to that…which some are influenced by the military/transient environment of Killeen.
Texas receives a huge amount of federal funding. Just in this clusterfuck of a bailout alone, $17 billion has been earmarked for Texas. Aside from a whole host of legal issues that no one’s really addressed, I don’t see them or any other state extending the middle finger to the Feds any time soon.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Texas receives a huge amount of federal funding. Just in this clusterfuck of a bailout alone, $17 billion has been earmarked for Texas. Aside from a whole host of legal issues that no one’s really addressed, I don’t see them or any other state extending the middle finger to the Feds any time soon.[/quote]
While all of this discussion is interesting and entertaining,I do feel that Gov.Rick Perry is fishing to gain support for re-election. He’s trying to figure out a way to keep Kay B. Hutchinson from handing him his ass come election time.
I’ll give him credit for speaking up…but why now? He’s never been enthusiastic about speaking up for TX before.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Texas receives a huge amount of federal funding. Just in this clusterfuck of a bailout alone, $17 billion has been earmarked for Texas. Aside from a whole host of legal issues that no one’s really addressed, I don’t see them or any other state extending the middle finger to the Feds any time soon.
While all of this discussion is interesting and entertaining,I do feel that Gov.Rick Perry is fishing to gain support for re-election. He’s trying to figure out a way to keep Kay B. Hutchinson from handing him his ass come election time.
I’ll give him credit for speaking up…but why now? He’s never been enthusiastic about speaking up for TX before. [/quote]
He’s definitely just trying to drum up support among people who are justifiably angry at the management of the federal government. It’s a win-win for him. He can say these pretty words without getting into details and explaining the massive undertaking that this would really entail. Safe in the comfort and security that it’s not ever really going to happen. It’s not really so different than that asshole Blumenthal going so hard after AIG bonus recipients. The popular thing to do right now.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax “tea party” Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states’ rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, “Secede!”
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Texas receives a huge amount of federal funding. Just in this clusterfuck of a bailout alone, $17 billion has been earmarked for Texas. Aside from a whole host of legal issues that no one’s really addressed, I don’t see them or any other state extending the middle finger to the Feds any time soon.
While all of this discussion is interesting and entertaining,I do feel that Gov.Rick Perry is fishing to gain support for re-election. He’s trying to figure out a way to keep Kay B. Hutchinson from handing him his ass come election time.
I’ll give him credit for speaking up…but why now? He’s never been enthusiastic about speaking up for TX before. [/quote]
I am in full agreement. As I stated earlier I think it is all just a ploy
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Texas receives a huge amount of federal funding. Just in this clusterfuck of a bailout alone, $17 billion has been earmarked for Texas. Aside from a whole host of legal issues that no one’s really addressed, I don’t see them or any other state extending the middle finger to the Feds any time soon.[/quote]
Some states certainly are net payers. Meaning they get less in federal money than the total federal taxes collected from their state.