Secession

[Sh|nK]

So many of the states are doing petitions to be removed from the union, you thoughts? Are you going to be one of the people that signs?

[Willsteak]

Being Canadian probably not.

[░▓░]

No. When you whittle it down, most states in the USA are landlocked and require federal funding to maintain their infrastructure. I wouldn't take the cry for secession anymore seriously than those who cried the same word when Bush won reelection back in 2004.

It is a non-issue.

[PJAAI4]

9 said:

No. When you whittle it down, most states in the USA are landlocked and require federal funding to maintain their infrastructure..

It is a non-issue.

Where do you think the Federal gov't gets its money?

[░▓░]

The same place where you get your money. From the federal government.

[PJAAI4]

Are you just joking around?

The government generates money through taxation, that means it comes from people and commerce. The States submit collection to the Federal gov't just to have it redistributed back to them.

I am pretty sure every State can maintain its own government.

[░▓░]

No, the government generates money, then loans it to the people and takes what is needed through taxation as revenue. Money just doesn't magically appear from a paycheck. It has to be physically manifested before it can be used for taxes.

Some states take more from the federal government then they provide in taxes. Traditional red states like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, Montana, Alabama and etc. take more money from the federal government than they give. For example, every dollar North Dakota gives to the government in taxes, the government has to give two dollars back to North Dakota in order to maintain it. If the secession were to occur, the federal government may end up saving money because many states are not economically viable. Thus, thinking that the government would keep any state around simply to get money is silly.

Granted, I don't doubt any state is incapable of living beyond the aid of a federal government but they may not be prosperous. Some would quickly become impoverished without a federal government to stimulate them with jobs, disaster relief, protection, etc..

[Nagi Naoe]

Not I, simply because it comes from nothing...it is just people being immature.

[PJAAI4]

9 said:

No, the government generates money, then loans it to the people and takes what is needed through taxation as revenue. Money just doesn't magically appear from a paycheck. It has to be physically manifested before it can be used for taxes.

Some states take more from the federal government then they provide in taxes. Traditional red states like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, Montana, Alabama and etc. take more money from the federal government than they give. For example, every dollar North Dakota gives to the government in taxes, the government has to give two dollars back to North Dakota in order to maintain it. If the secession were to occur, the federal government may end up saving money because many states are not economically viable. Thus, thinking that the government would keep any state around simply to get money is silly.

Granted, I don't doubt any state is incapable of living beyond the aid of a federal government but they may not be prosperous. Some would quickly become impoverished without a federal government to stimulate them with jobs, disaster relief, protection, etc..

Ok. I see you are joking.

[PJAAI4]

The Federal Reserve (which is an NGO) does in fact make money (thought still printed by the US Mint which is the gov't) and earn interest of said loan.

Money is an abstraction created by trade. You can have money with no federal gov't.

If anything banks create money when they loan money out they do not even have (they maybe have 10% actually money and the rest is debt owed to them - even though they never had the money to begin with - thank you usury).

[Jade West]

The only petition I will sign is to make Key-Lime Pie the national pie of the USA. Canadians may sign this petition also.

[░▓░]

PJAAI4 said:

9 said:

No, the government generates money, then loans it to the people and takes what is needed through taxation as revenue. Money just doesn't magically appear from a paycheck. It has to be physically manifested before it can be used for taxes.

Some states take more from the federal government then they provide in taxes. Traditional red states like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, Montana, Alabama and etc. take more money from the federal government than they give. For example, every dollar North Dakota gives to the government in taxes, the government has to give two dollars back to North Dakota in order to maintain it. If the secession were to occur, the federal government may end up saving money because many states are not economically viable. Thus, thinking that the government would keep any state around simply to get money is silly.

Granted, I don't doubt any state is incapable of living beyond the aid of a federal government but they may not be prosperous. Some would quickly become impoverished without a federal government to stimulate them with jobs, disaster relief, protection, etc..

Ok. I see you are joking.

If it is easier for you to dismiss my statements as opposed to addressing it, then sure. Nothing wrong with using a crutch if you can't walk. I won't hold anyone to such formal standards.

But to the heart of the matter, no one is seriously going to leave the union over the results of a election. It is just a childish knee-jerk reaction to those (who represent less then %1 of America) who have trouble coping with the will of the majority and the media just didn't have anything else worthwhile to report that day.

Like I said previously, a non-issue.

[PJAAI4]

9, you must be better at trolling than me.

I didn't dismiss any of your statements. I just don't find them very thought out. Was there a point specifically you would like to discuss further?

I do however appreciate the tactic of accusing others of dismissing your position of "non-issue". I wonder what that is called in Latin.