Texas to withdraw from the United States of America

[3rd&48ers]

Is this BS or what?


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nment/BmdWCP8B


Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

I was wrong. There were 100,000 more moonbats in Virginia, PA, and Ohio than I thought.

I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

Candidate	Popular vote	Percentage	Electoral votes (270 to win)
Barack Obama	62610717	51%	332
Mitt Romney	59136717	48%	206

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.

In todays electorate, yes it does.

[|Zach|]

The lead up and aftermath of this election has been a joy.

People going crazy.

Companies blaming Obama for their own woes in the free market.

Dogs and cats...living together...mass hysteria.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.

I shall grasp my anger like a virgin does his cock.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

Obama won in 2008 with a 7.27% lead. His support dropped because he won with 2.8% recently. He also did not win the Independent vote. The Christian right did not all turn out for Romney either. They didn't all vote.

Now let's look at this election another way:
There are 207.6 million eligible voters in the U.S. The number who voted is 123.7 million. About 40.4 percent didn't vote.

Applying the Austrian economic analysis, we can conclude that 40.4 percent of possible voters, for many reasons, did not find it worthwhile to vote or found that the costs of voting exceeded the potential benefits. This non-vote is, in effect, a vote against their government and against any candidate for president. The preceding conclusion is solid as a rock. But I'd go further and speculate that their non-vote is, in effect, a vote against the system of voting.[<-the latter part I don't really agree with but it is true for some people who don't vote.]

Obama won with 62.6 million votes. He got 30.2 percent of eligible voters' possible votes. What he should do is immediately resign. He has failed even to get any reasonable fraction of his countrymen behind his presidency. Romney, of course, did slightly worse.

Obama's slimmer margin

The Republicans still have a majority in the House—that's the only place any revenue bill can originate. It's not one of the President's powers. The power of the purse belongs to the House. They don't have to give him what he wants. He has no right to dictate to them either as if he's an elected dictator. That's what you're demanding. He already dressed the SC down twice. We have checks and balances.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

In todays electorate, yes it does.

No it doesn't. That's just your opinion. It's enough to be elected president, but we have three branches of govt.
The EC is to create a clear winner and because of the role of the president since he represents the nation in terms of treaties, ambassadors, meeting foreign officials and executing war. He does not represent the various constituencies. The House has that role.
So he does not craft legislation.

[bobbymitch]

Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by bobbymitch

Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

Not even remotely close:

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org...exas&usa=false

[listopencil]

And:

In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010. But by 2011, when stimulus funds dry up, she speculated that Texas will revert to being a "donor state."

Summing up: The figures from our sources show two different trends. On an annual basis between 1981 and 2003, Texas almost always paid more in federal taxes than it got back from Uncle Sam. But since 2003 the reverse has been true, with Texas receiving more than it paid in five out of seven years, which is close to routine.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...outinely-rece/

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by bobbymitch

Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

Texas sends over $200 billion dollars a year to wash dc.

I'm sure they can figure out how to maintain interstate roads if they get to keep that.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by listopencil

And:

In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available,

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

"In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010."

That would be the entire sentence. Were you lol'ing because you misread the quote? by the way, the article explains that from 1981 to 2003 Texas contributed more to the Federal government in taxes than it received. From roughly the beginning of W's second term to now that was flip flopped for a slight majority of years due to stimulus money being sent out to all the states, including Texas.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by listopencil

"In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010."

That would be the entire sentence. Were you lol'ing because you misread the quote? by the way, the article explains that from 1981 to 2003 Texas contributed more to the Federal government in taxes than it received. From roughly the beginning of W's second term to now that was flip flopped for a slight majority of years due to stimulus money being sent out to all the states, including Texas.

I didn't misread anything.

The taxpayers in Texas did not get back there money. The statement that these states "received more than residents paid in taxes" might be accurate, however who is "the state"? Federal employees who work in that state? Do you have any idea how many military bases are in Texas? Do you know how much federal property has to be maintained in those states? How much of that money goes to medicaid costs? Yeah, neither do I, because the OP doesn't provide the information.

Also when you factor in the waste, fraud and abuse, I guarantee the +200 billion dollars that Texas sends to the pig trough in wash dc would be managed much more efficiently if they just kept the money and handled the above mentioned costs themselves. In fact, they would be left with a surplus.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

I didn't misread anything.

The taxpayers in Texas did not get back there money. The statement that these states "received more than residents paid in taxes" might be accurate, however who is "the state"? Federal employees who work in that state? Do you have any idea how many military bases are in Texas? Do you know how much federal property has to be maintained in those states? How much of that money goes to medicaid costs? Yeah, neither do I, because the OP doesn't provide the information.

Also when you factor in the waste, fraud and abuse, I guarantee the +200 billion dollars that Texas sends to the pig trough in wash dc would be managed much more efficiently if they just kept the money and handled the above mentioned costs themselves. In fact, they would be left with a surplus.

I asked you because you highlighted a sentence fragment. We don't disagree here. I am saying that not only does Texas run efficiently enough to tax its citizens substantially less than most states, but that historically Texas pays more money to the Federal government than it receives. The notion of Texas falling apart (economically) without Federal money is ridiculous.