First Came Brexit, Now Comes Texit

[dismal]

Best? I don't notice anyone offering it as the best argument... Certainly nothing like the ONLY argument.

But it IS something else to think about.

In addition the money the government pays directly to the state, there's the salaries the service members and their dependents are spending to live in the state.

And there are other things of a similar nature. I'd expect 'out of state' tuition to go away, for example.

Nah, dismal has already told us Texas won't need to worry about that, because they won't need a military after the leave the US.

I seem to recall dismal's position was that military spending (including salaries) is a cost, not a benefit.

Perhaps dismal feels some amount of money the US spends on military could be more productively spent on other things, and some of those people drawing military salaries could be redeployed into producing more useful things.

 

[untermensche]

The second Texans would do this relationships with the US government end.

No SS or Medicare benefits for citizens of Texas.

US citizenship of Texans revoked.

You come in here without our permission you are an illegal.

So, poster who blames the US for everything wrong in the world whines like a little bitch that someone may not want to be part of it.

I'm not saying it is what I want.

But to the US government treason has a cost.

 

[dismal]

So, poster who blames the US for everything wrong in the world whines like a little bitch that someone may not want to be part of it.

I'm not saying it is what I want.

But to the US government treason has a cost.

Tip: if it happens it will be by mutual agreement.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not saying it is what I want.

But to the US government treason has a cost.

Tip: if it happens it will be by mutual agreement.

I can't wait.

 

[Ford]

I'm not saying it is what I want.

But to the US government treason has a cost.

Tip: if it happens it will be by mutual agreement.

Leaving aside for the moment that the federal government would not simply let Texas or any other state simply walk away from the United States, a "Texit" would crater the Lone Star Republic's economy. The billions in benefits from the military bases would be gone, and also the billions of dollars that pour into defense contractors like Raytheon who would no doubt relocate to America.

Then there's taxes. One of the reasons companies relocate to Texas is because the tax structure is favorable for the business, and there's no personal income tax. The newly minted Republic would have to raise taxes in order to supplant all the federal money that would go bye-bye, and that would mean taxing businesses and individuals. A lot of businesses would pack up and leave simply because they want to be based in the United States, but a lot more would leave because their taxes would go up.

Then with Texas being a foreign country and all, there would have to be trade agreements and tariffs for allowing these foreign goods into the USA. Not good for business.

 

[dismal]

The billions in benefits from the military bases would be gone

It''s always the military bases.

This forum sure loves itself some military bases.

 

[ZiprHead]

Leaving aside for the moment that the federal government would not simply let Texas or any other state simply walk away from the United States...

As I understand it, Texas is the only state that got, as part of the agreement to statehood, a right to leave the US if it wanted to.

- - - Updated - - -

The billions in benefits from the military bases would be gone

It''s always the military bases.

This forum sure loves itself some military bases.

No, Texas loves its military bases.

This dismal sure loves itself some strawmen.

 

[KeepTalking]

Nah, dismal has already told us Texas won't need to worry about that, because they won't need a military after the leave the US.

I seem to recall dismal's position was that military spending (including salaries) is a cost, not a benefit.

Wow, "military spending is a cost". That's such an astute observation, I am surprised I missed it the first time. Of course having a military sizable enough to deter the well armed neighbor to your north is of no benefit, so it's all a cost, right?

Perhaps dismal feels some amount of money the US spends on military could be more productively spent on other things, and some of those people drawing military salaries could be redeployed into producing more useful things.

So how much of that cost can a newly liberated Texas expect to make savings on once the USA is no longer footing the bill? How much of that military benefit will they be willing to do without, once they have an exceptionally well armed neighbor on their northern border?

 

[dismal]

As I understand it, Texas is the only state that got, as part of the agreement to statehood, a right to leave the US if it wanted to.

- - - Updated - - -

The billions in benefits from the military bases would be gone

It''s always the military bases.

This forum sure loves itself some military bases.

No, Texas loves its military bases.

This dismal sure loves itself some strawmen.

It's not a strawman to say people keep bringing up the military bases when people keep bringing up the military bases.

 

[nightwyrm]

Also, how many people and businesses are going to leave Texas simply because they're no longer part of the US. How about people who were born in Texas living in other parts of the US? Are they immediately naturalized as US citizens, or do they have to go thru a process, or are they gonna be deported back to Texas. How about the people born in other states who decides to remain in Texas? It'd be a bigger clusterfuck than Brexit.

 

[dismal]

I seem to recall dismal's position was that military spending (including salaries) is a cost, not a benefit.

Wow, "military spending is a cost". That's such an astute observation, I am surprised I missed it the first time. Of course having a military sizable enough to deter the well armed neighbor to your north is of no benefit, so it's all a cost, right?

Perhaps dismal feels some amount of money the US spends on military could be more productively spent on other things, and some of those people drawing military salaries could be redeployed into producing more useful things.

So how much of that cost can a newly liberated Texas expect to make savings on once the USA is no longer footing the bill? How much of that military benefit will they be willing to do without, once they have an exceptionally well armed neighbor on their northern border?

Well, lessee Canada spends 1% of GDP on its military and Mexico spends 0.7% and the US hasn't invaded them in a while.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Texas has a similar sized economy ($1.4 trillion) versus 1.2 for Mexico and 1.8 for Canada.

So, 100 billion or so ought to be enough. Assuming you don't just build a few nukes and go the citizen militia route.

edit: got the math wrong - 10 or 15 billion.

 

[Rhea]

dismal, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that taxes in Texas will go DOWN in a secession scenario, because the federal bases will withdraw and they are a net drain on the texas economy, so this will be a good thing?

Now, I agree that the USA is over-militarized. And yes, I'd like to see taxes go down from less military spending. But isn't Texas, in particular, what's called a Federal Moocher State in which they receive more in federal dollars than their citizens pay into the fed pocket? So any secession would result in a raising of taxes? I suppose if you _assume_ that texas would not replace any military that leaves, then they could keep their taxes down. Or that replacing capital goods won't take an initial massive spending... but that seems like a precarious assumption.

 

[dismal]

dismal, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that taxes in Texas will go DOWN in a secession scenario, because the federal bases will withdraw and they are a net drain on the texas economy, so this will be a good thing?

Now, I agree that the USA is over-militarized. And yes, I'd like to see taxes go down from less military spending. But isn't Texas, in particular, what's called a Federal Moocher State in which they receive more in federal dollars than their citizens pay into the fed pocket? So any secession would result in a raising of taxes? I suppose if you _assume_ that texas would not replace any military that leaves, then they could keep their taxes down. Or that replacing capital goods won't take an initial massive spending... but that seems like a precarious assumption.

Suppose I offer you the following deal: You give me $100 and I will pay some guys $200 to put on green suits and march around your back yard.

Do you feel like a big winner?

Or would you rather keep the $100 and let those guys produce something useful?

 

[Ford]

The billions in benefits from the military bases would be gone

It''s always the military bases.

This forum sure loves itself some military bases.

And you seem to love dodging the fact that a significant portion of your state's economy depends upon those bases. It is not a "love" or "hate" argument, just simple reality. The federal government pours a lot of money into Texas, and that money would all go away in a secession.

You seem unwilling or unable to address this very real problem.

 

[dismal]

According to this there is $42 billion of military spending in Texas. The Texas economy is $1.4 trillion.

http://www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/futures/6._bloomberg_defense_spending.pdf

This is a small number before we even address whether the spending produces something of value.

 

[KeepTalking]

dismal, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that taxes in Texas will go DOWN in a secession scenario, because the federal bases will withdraw and they are a net drain on the texas economy, so this will be a good thing?

Now, I agree that the USA is over-militarized. And yes, I'd like to see taxes go down from less military spending. But isn't Texas, in particular, what's called a Federal Moocher State in which they receive more in federal dollars than their citizens pay into the fed pocket? So any secession would result in a raising of taxes? I suppose if you _assume_ that texas would not replace any military that leaves, then they could keep their taxes down. Or that replacing capital goods won't take an initial massive spending... but that seems like a precarious assumption.

Suppose I offer you the following deal: You give me $100 and I will pay some guys $200 to put on green suits and march around your back yard.

Do you feel like a big winner?

Or would you rather keep the $100 and let those guys produce something useful?

How many guys are you going to pay to march around my back yard? Let's say 4, seems like a nice, even number. Those guys need somewhere to sleep while they are not marching around, so I will charge them $25 each for a nice, warm bed, looks like I am breaking even now. Of course, they're going to need to eat as well, so let's say another $15 each for three squares. Now I'm making $60 from those guys marching around my back yard, but we aren't even done yet. They are going to need to buy stuff with the rest of the money they are getting paid, so I will allow them to shop in my backyard store at a discount, while still making a profit. Then they are going to need savings accounts for the money they don't spend, so I can sign them up for my backyard banking service.

Seems like a good deal to me.

 

[dismal]

Suppose I offer you the following deal: You give me $100 and I will pay some guys $200 to put on green suits and march around your back yard.

Do you feel like a big winner?

Or would you rather keep the $100 and let those guys produce something useful?

How many guys are you going to pay to march around my back yard? Let's say 4, seems like a nice, even number. Those guys need somewhere to sleep while they are not marching around, so I will charge them $25 each for a nice, warm bed, looks like I am breaking even now. Of course, they're going to need to eat as well, so let's say another $15 each for three squares. Now I'm making $60 from those guys marching around my back yard, but we aren't even done yet. They are going to need to buy stuff with the rest of the money they are getting paid, so I will allow them to shop in my backyard store at a discount, while still making a profit. Then they are going to need savings accounts for the money they don't spend, so I can sign them up for my backyard banking service.

Seems like a good deal to me.

Wow, I didn't realize paying guys to put on green suits and walk around was such a font of unlimited wealth. Maybe we should start up a couple thousand more military bases to really jump start the ol' GDP. It's like free money.

The part I'm not sure about is it seems like those 4 guys would be living somewhere and buying food somewhere if they were being paid to do something useful too. But we'd also have that something useful.

 

[Sarpedon]

It is when they are spending money off base, either in services or off duty entertainment, and that money is coming from other states in the form of taxes.

It seems you need the simplest concepts explained to you.

 

[Ford]

According to this there is $42 billion of military spending in Texas. The Texas economy is $1.4 trillion.

http://www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/futures/6._bloomberg_defense_spending.pdf

This is a small number before we even address whether the spending produces something of value.

You seem to be of the opinion that it does not. None of the payroll goes into the communities around the bases. Military people and contractors don't shop for goods and services, rent or purchase housing, etc. The amount of spending (according to your source) is a few percent of Texas' GDP. The impact of that spending is considerably larger.

 

[KeepTalking]

How many guys are you going to pay to march around my back yard? Let's say 4, seems like a nice, even number. Those guys need somewhere to sleep while they are not marching around, so I will charge them $25 each for a nice, warm bed, looks like I am breaking even now. Of course, they're going to need to eat as well, so let's say another $15 each for three squares. Now I'm making $60 from those guys marching around my back yard, but we aren't even done yet. They are going to need to buy stuff with the rest of the money they are getting paid, so I will allow them to shop in my backyard store at a discount, while still making a profit. Then they are going to need savings accounts for the money they don't spend, so I can sign them up for my backyard banking service.

Seems like a good deal to me.

Wow, I didn't realize paying guys to put on green suits and walk around was such a font of unlimited wealth. Maybe we should start up a couple thousand more military bases to really jump start the ol' GDP. It's like free money.

Not for you, it isn't, since you are paying them $200 and getting nothing out of it that I can tell. I am only shelling out half that, and getting a return on my investment. Also, those guys will help to protect me from anyone who wants to steal shit from my back yard, so even if I only break even monetarily, it is a net positive for me.

The part I'm not sure about is it seems like those 4 guys would be living somewhere and buying food somewhere if they were being paid to do something useful too. But we'd also have that something useful.

But they won't be doing it in my backyard, so I won't have as good of a chance to profit from it, and they also won't be protecting my backyard from thieves. Nah, I think I will keep the deal you offered in the first place.