Should Texas secede from the U.S.?

[AURex 1,998]

 

Apparently, this idea of Texas seceding from the U.S. has come up again because -- I dunno -- immigrants.

Texas receives $68.2 Billion. in Federal dollars.

1/3 of Texas state budget is Federal dollars.

Should Texas secede?

 

[TexasTiger 12,868]

10 hours ago, AURex said:

 

Apparently, this idea of Texas seceding from the U.S. has come up again because -- I dunno -- immigrants.

Texas receives $68.2 Billion. in Federal dollars.

1/3 of Texas state budget is Federal dollars.

Should Texas secede?

 

Not with its lousy electrical grid.

[Aufan59 62]

My favorite thing about the idea of Texas seceding is conservatives asking what would happen to their social security checks.

 

In other words, if we secede, will we still get our socialism benefits?

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

13 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

My favorite thing about the idea of Texas seceding is conservatives asking what would happen to their social security checks.

 

In other words, if we secede, will we still get our socialism benefits?

 

 

Yep, the government has us right where they want us.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yep, the government has us right where they want us.

Yeah, we need to go back in time where people who became too old or disabled to work just starved to death in their dirt floor shacks if they hadn't saved up enough money for themselves. 

 

[Aufan59 62]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yep, the government has us right where they want us.

Where do they want us?  Relying on them for protections and safety nets?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

20 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Where do they want us?  Relying on them for protections and safety nets?

 

Dependant on the Government.  It’s pretty simple.  Work so you don’t have to rely on the government.  But that requires a little initiative.

Edited February 2 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yeah, we need to go back in time where people who became too old or disabled to work just starved to death in their dirt floor shacks if they hadn't saved up enough money for themselves. 

 

No, you need to adjust your life so you don’t become dependent on the government.  Easier said than done and it depends on how life and your health treat you.  I have no problem with people who really need assistance getting assistance, its the ones that make a business out of the assistance from government is the problem. 

[Aufan59 62]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Dependant on the Government.  It’s pretty simple.  Work so you don’t have to rely on the government.  But that requires a little initiative.

We are all dependent on the government.  Who do you think protects your rights?

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

We are all dependent on the government.  Who do you think protects your rights?

Of course we are, but it shouldn’t be a way of life and one should not be fully dependant financially on the government.  Are you?

[TexasTiger 12,868]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course we are, but it shouldn’t be a way of life and one should not be fully dependant financially on the government.  Are you?

Every other western society assures healthcare and all provide pensions. 

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Every other western society assures healthcare and all provide pensions. 

So, is that pension the only source of money the citizen has to live off of?  Is there options to be more independent of the government pension in those countries?

[Aufan59 62]

54 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course we are, but it shouldn’t be a way of life and one should not be fully dependant financially on the government.  Are you?

I am not fully dependent, but you have changed your words from ‘dependent’ to ‘fully dependent financially’.

Edited February 2 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

8 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I am not fully dependent, but you have changed your words from ‘dependent’ to ‘fully dependent financially’.

You implied by you original post that conservative were worried about their SS checks.  You brought the financial aspect into the conversation. When you brought up the financial aspect, I went with that and clarified that in a subsequent posts.

[Aufan59 62]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You implied by you original post that conservative were worried about their SS checks.  You brought the financial aspect into the conversation. When you brought up the financial aspect, I went with that and clarified that in a subsequent posts.

Conservatives are worried about losing their socialism, which I find funny.  

 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, is that pension the only source of money the citizen has to live off of?  Is there options to be more independent of the government pension in those countries?

I think this is a great discussion. Who should the gov “protect” and provide a safety net for (ie someone with autism) vs a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices (ie not doing short term saving for potentially losing a job or longer term retirement). Some people mismanage their lives - what’s the role and degree of gov in protecting us from ourselves.

Additionally, what laws should be common nationally vs at the state or county level? Ie Somebody from Opp will culturally not agree with someone from Boston on gun rights - and never will. Localization is critical for the health of the country.

We’re called the United States for a reason - the founders brilliantly realized that this only works if regions can have some autonomy. To end these concerning succession narratives - we need to respect and rediscover the founders original intent again.

Edited February 2 by auburnatl1

[TuscaloosaTiger 281]

Yes, we all should secede and take our tax dollars with us.

[Aufan59 62]

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think this is a great discussion. Who should the gov “protect” and provide a safety net for (ie someone with autism) vs a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices (ie not doing short term saving for potentially losing a job or longer term retirement). Some people mismanage their lives - what’s the role and degree of gov in protecting us from ourselves.

Additionally, what laws should be common nationally vs at the state or county level? Ie Somebody from Opp will culturally not agree with someone from Boston on gun rights - and never will. Localization is critical for the health of the country.

We’re called the United States for a reason - the founders brilliantly realized that this only works if regions can have some autonomy. To end these concerning succession narratives - we need to respect and rediscover the founders original intent again.

On your point about safety nets, poor people will always exist.  The Bible says it and capitalism guarantees it.  I think this is reason enough to provide a social safety net, and reason why it shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s high horse opinion on life choices.  
 

In a world where everyone studied hard and became an upstanding doctor or engineer, there would exist poor doctors and engineers who would need a social safety net.  The need for a safety net is independent from the fact that some individuals make bad life choices.

 

On states autonomy, we tried that.  States used to have more autonomy but some states used their autonomy to treat people as property.  Kinda ruined that whole idea.

Ignoring that obvious example, and back to yours, regions having more autonomy worked much better when it took five weeks to get from Boston to Alabama.  Now you can do it within a day.  Alabama having their own idea of gun rights, in your example, potentially affects Boston. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

On your point about safety nets, poor people will always exist.  The Bible says it and capitalism guarantees it.  I think this is reason enough to provide a social safety net, and reason why it shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s high horse opinion on life choices.  
 

In a world where everyone studied hard and became an upstanding doctor or engineer, there would exist poor doctors and engineers who would need a social safety net.  The need for a safety net is independent from the fact that some individuals make bad life choices.

 

On states autonomy, we tried that.  States used to have more autonomy but some states used their autonomy to treat people as property.  Kinda ruined that whole idea.

Ignoring that obvious example, and back to yours, regions having more autonomy worked much better when it took five weeks to get from Boston to Alabama.  Now you can do it within a day.  Alabama having their own idea of gun rights, in your example, potentially affects Boston. 

The first point was establishing the size and degree of society’s safety net is a critical debate.  Ultimately - what’s the role of gov? A classic and refreshing  gop vs dem argument (vs screaming about bud light).

The second was local vs national laws and regulations. Yes the country is obviously more mobile today but many laws can and should still be localized - not everything has to be a common denominator and shouldn’t be.  When I see more and more the word “succession” - it’s time for that discussion.

[autigeremt 6,618]

If that’s what they decide to do. It should be their choice. 
 

It’s all going to come apart any way. This countries days are numbered. 

[Aufan59 62]

8 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The first point was establishing the size and degree of society’s safety net is a critical debate.  Ultimately - what’s the role of gov? A classic and refreshing  gop vs dem argument (vs screaming about bud light).

The second was local vs national laws and regulations. Yes the country is obviously more mobile today but many laws can and should still be localized - not everything has to be a common denominator and shouldn’t be.  When I see more and more the word “succession” - it’s time for that discussion.

I agree the size and degree of the safety net is a good discussion. 
 

But first you have to establish that the safety net is needed, and not just government trying to make you dependent as brought up by I_M4_AU.

 

I believe you agree it’s needed.  Then next you have to establish that the safety net shouldn’t be dependent on arbitrary judgement of what the individual should have done to avoid needing the safety net in the first place.  Or as you put it :  “a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices”.

I’m not sure where you fall on the second point, but the answer is that yes, safety nets should include protecting those who made poor life choices.  
 

“Poor life choices” is undefined and arbitrary, outside of breaking the law.  In the world where everyone is an upstanding highly qualified doctor or engineer, there would be poor doctors and engineers who need a safety net.  Their poor life choice was what exactly?  Not being a better doctor or engineer?  And if they were better, it would be someone else at the bottom.

 

Edited February 3 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

“Poor life choices” is undefined and arbitrary, outside of breaking the law.  In the world where everyone is an upstanding highly qualified doctor or engineer, there would be poor doctors and engineers who need a safety net.  Their poor life choice was what exactly?  Not being a better doctor or engineer?  And if they were better, it would be someone else at the bottom.

There actually is a way to avoid poverty according to the Brookings Institute:

What if we had a plan to avoid poverty? What if the plan worked 98% of the time?   Wouldn’t that be great?  That is exactly what Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill from The Brookings Institution had.  It caused quite a stir and went all the way to a congressional hearing.  No one knew quite what to do with it. Actually, it wasn’t really a plan per se, it was more of a target statistic. A very simple statistic.  

This is from Ron Haskins, testifying before Congress on June 5, 2012.

“Young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success – complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby.”

Isabel Sawhill

It is not often that such a definitive statement is made about how to avoid poverty. The statement is powerful because it is based on Census Bureau data. Mr. Haskins and Ms. Sawhill crunched the data and learned that “people who followed all three of these rules had only a 2 percent chance of being in poverty and a 72 percent chance of joining the middle class (defined as above $55,000 in 2010).”

https://federalsafetynet.com/a-98-proof-plan-to-avoid-poverty/

Too easy?  No, because it requires taking personal responsibility which some don’t have.

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

But first you have to establish that the safety net is needed, and not just government trying to make you dependent as brought up by I_M4_AU.

Originally the National Welfare System was set up as a temporary measure.

A National Welfare System

The emphasis during the first two years of President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was to provide work relief for the millions of unemployed Americans. Federal money flowed to the states to pay for public works projects, which employed the jobless. Some federal aid also directly assisted needy victims of the Depression. The states, however, remained mainly responsible for taking care of the so-called "unemployables" (widows, poor children, the elderly poor, and the disabled). But states and private charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these people at a time when tax collections and personal giving were declining steeply.

In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935, President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." He went on to propose the creation of federal unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons.

By permanently expanding federal responsibility for the security of all Americans, Roosevelt believed that the necessity for government make-work employment and other forms of Depression relief would disappear. In his address before Congress, Roosevelt argued that the continuation of government relief programs was a bad thing for the country:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . . 

A few months later, on August 18, 1935, Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. It set up a federal retirement program for persons over 65, which was financed by a payroll tax paid jointly by employers and their workers. FDR believed that federal old-age pensions together with employer-paid unemployment insurance (also a part of the Social Security Act) would provide the economic security people needed during both good and bad times.

https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a-how-welfare-began-in-the-united-states.html#:~:text=in their community.-,A National Welfare System,projects%2C which employed the jobless.

If you don’t think the government is controlling you by giving you *free money* why does a politician who brings up limiting entitlement programs is shouted down or voted out of office?

 

[Aufan59 62]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What if we had a plan to avoid poverty? What if the plan worked 98% of the time?

If this plan worked 98% of the time, we would still need a safety net.

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, because it requires taking personal responsibility which some don’t have.

Exactly, some people don’t have personal responsibility and need a safety net.

 

The alternative is that we let them die on the street.  I assume that is not your take.

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Originally the National Welfare System was set up as a temporary measure.

 

I suggest you read the entire speech.  This snippet we can agree on, that we would prefer for nobody to have to rely on the safety net.

But do you agree with the rest?  It’s a damn socialist manifesto if said today:

“We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well.”

This is more true now than ever.

And how does he propose to get people off the government dole?  Emergency government employment:

“It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three and one half million employable people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment.”

Works for me!

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you don’t think the government is controlling you by giving you *free money* why does a politician who brings up limiting entitlement programs is shouted down or voted out of office

Popular policy does not mean government is using it to control us.  

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

10 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

If this plan worked 98% of the time, we would still need a safety net.

Yes we would, for 2%, much lower than we have today.

10 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Exactly, some people don’t have personal responsibility and need a safety net.

 

The alternative is that we let them die on the street.  I assume that is not your take.

It can be taught.  Why reward laziness?  The incentive of staying off of welfare should be the driving force, not a way of life.  Where is the incentive to get off of welfare?

10 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

It’s a damn socialist manifesto if said today:

It’s been said today and it is a socialist manifesto.  AOC has suggested a minimum monthly stipend for those *unable or unwilling to work*.  We have a low unemployment rate, but are dumping millions more people into the country without a job.  Something has to give.

I’m sure it works for you. What is the incentive for the next generation to work or even defend our country?

If your going to give money away, how about a required 4 year hitch in the Armed Forces of their choice?

 

Edited February 3 by I_M4_AU

[Aufan59 62]

13 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes we would, for 2%, much lower than we have today.

It would be higher than 2%.  In a world where everyone does the right thing, there will still be poverty.  Poverty will always exist.  Even if everyone worked hard and did all the correct things, there will still be people at the bottom.

 

Thus poverty should be treated as a societal problem, not a problem of individual actors and their choices.

 

Do you believe poor people will always exist?

 

Also as a footnote, poverty line for individuals in 2010 was about $11,000, less than full time minimum wage.  Yikes!