Splitting the US? Many Americans say yes

[ZiprHead]

IIRC, Texas is the only state that included a clause that they could leave anytime in the future if they decided to when they became a state in the union. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see what happens by letting them do so. Give them and the US a two year time span to complete the separation. Let people and corporations move freely during that time span. Allow the old and new Texas nationals to continue to receive their SS benefits they're entitled to but the new nation of Texas can handle everything else.

Thoughts?

It is my understanding that at present (unlike most other countries) if a US citizen takes up residence in another country, they are still liable to the US government for federal income tax. That is on top of the income tax they will be paying in the other country. And the only way out of that is to voluntarily give up US citizenship.

If Texas were to leave the US union, do you change that law too? Or do the Texans still have to pay US federal income tax?

I would say no, if they decide to become citizens of the nation of Texas.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Texas does not have a clause giving them the right to secede from the US. But it does have a clause giving it the right to split into as many as five states if so desired.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Right. Just like after the Revolutionary War when everything was so wonderful and hunky dory and fucked up that it was decided that a stronger central government was needed to make things work. Imagine that.

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

Shhhh. Those red states are actually being oppressed. Everybody know that.

 

[Tigers!]

For the non-US amongst us:- Who or what is Marc? (For RVonse)

 

[marc]

For the non-US amongst us:- Who or what is Marc? (For RVonse)

Who or What? Rather oddly stated question, vague with no indication as to what information is actually being looked for.

and "(For RVonse)" which would indicate a belief that I have RVonse on Ignore, (as opposed to just skipping his posts) and so you repost the question so I could see it an respond. To which I ask: what makes you think I would want to respond to someone I ignore if the question is relayed by a third party?

 

[jonatha]

For the non-US amongst us:- Who or what is Marc? (For RVonse)

See post #37

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IIRC, Texas is the only state that included a clause that they could leave anytime in the future if they decided to when they became a state in the union. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see what happens by letting them do so. Give them and the US a two year time span to complete the separation. Let people and corporations move freely during that time span. Allow the old and new Texas nationals to continue to receive their SS benefits they're entitled to but the new nation of Texas can handle everything else.

Thoughts?

It is my understanding that at present (unlike most other countries) if a US citizen takes up residence in another country, they are still liable to the US government for federal income tax. That is on top of the income tax they will be paying in the other country. And the only way out of that is to voluntarily give up US citizenship.

If Texas were to leave the US union, do you change that law too? Or do the Texans still have to pay US federal income tax?

Yes and no.

If you're a US citizen you pay US income tax regardless of where you live.

However, it is not on top of the taxes for wherever you actually live. You fill out your US tax return normally but when it comes to tax payments taxes paid to where you live are counted as taxes paid. If your local rate is higher you end up with $0 on the US return. If the local rate is lower you pay the local taxes and pay the US the difference between the US taxes and the local taxes.

Note that this applies to a lot more than just expats. If you have any stock investments in foreign countries (easy to do if you buy some sort of balanced investment fund) you're liable to have a little bit of foreign tax that shows up on a 1099-Div. That carries through to the 1040 as foreign taxes paid and comes off the US taxes.

 

[Elixir]

If Texas were to leave the US union, do you change that law too?

Well yeah. They are no longer US citizens, so they lose federal funding from the USA and don't have to pay into it.
They would pay tax to their Texas Reichsbank instead. And they would come out ahead if that's the end of the story: Texas gets back only $.88 on every federal tax dollar they pay. But if they are confederated with the other red states, it becomes a totally different story.
ND, WV, MS, AK, SC KY, and AL are all HEAVILY subsidized by the fed, getting back more than twice as much as much as they pay to the fed.

The difference is made up mostly from big (blue) States like CA and NY, which are huge economies that only get back $.75 and $.70 respectively. So TX might do well to leave their highly dependent brethren in Nazi philosophy out of their new fiefdom.

 

[Tigers!]

For the non-US amongst us:- Who or what is Marc? (For RVonse)

See post #37

Thank you
That tells me what Marc says.
But the question was (as one with a passing interest in US politics) - the Republicans do gerrymandering. Do the democrats do it anywhere?

 

[marc]

For the non-US amongst us:- Who or what is Marc? (For RVonse)

See post #37

Thank you
That tells me what Marc says.
But the question was (as one with a passing interest in US politics) - the Republicans do gerrymandering. Do the democrats do it anywhere?

Yes I believe there are a few places that democrats have tried to gerrymander their states. No where to the extent that we see in republican controlled states I think, but some people think democrats should do it more as a counter or to force republicans to agree to anti-gerrymandering laws.

 

[Swammerdami]

But the question was (as one with a passing interest in US politics) - the Republicans do gerrymandering. Do the democrats do it anywhere?

From a scholarly paper titled "The Worst Partisan Gerrymanders in U.S. State Legislatures"

• The worst U.S. state legislative partisan gerrymanders are the following: 1. Virginia; 2. Wisconsin; 3. Pennsylvania; 4. Michigan; 5. North Carolina; 6. Ohio; 7. Nevada; 8 (tie). Arkansas; 8 (tie) Oklahoma; 9. Kentucky; 10. Tennessee.
• These states were classified as the worst U.S state legislative partisan gerrymanders based on analyses of the statewide popular vote in 2017 or 2018 state legislative elections and the partisan composition of the state legislative chambers in 2019.
...
• 59 million Americans live under minority rule in their U.S. state legislatures following the 2018 elections. Minority rule is defined as the party with the minority of votes in the most recent election nevertheless controlling the majority of seats in the state legislature subsequent to that election. Six U.S. state legislatures were drawn by legislatures or partisan-leaning committees that resulted in minority rule following the 2018 elections. These states are Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
• Many states have disproportional gaps between the percentage of the statewide popular vote received in state legislative elections and the percentage of seats the party won. There are six states with extremely large differences of 15 percentage points or more between the statewide popular vote won and the percentage of seats won in the legislature. These states are Arkansas, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. 27 million Americans live in these states.
...

Every single one of the states just mentioned are states where it was the Republicans who rigged the districting to favor them. Read it slowly: "Every single one." Do the Democrats do it too? Let's keep reading:

...
• There were no state houses where the Republican party received a majority of the vote in 2018, but where the Democratic party won a majority of the legislative seats.

Let's repeat that: There were no state houses where the Republican party received a majority of the vote in 2018, but where the Democratic party won a majority of the legislative seats.



Beware:The Democratic Party traces its roots back to Thomas Jefferson in the 18th century. The Republican Party is "only" about 170 years old but is, more or less, heir to the Whig and Federalist Parties which trace back to their opposition to the ideals of Jefferson.

QOPAnon liars will be eager to say "Nanner nanner nanner your side does it too." But the examples they cite will be from decades ago, or even earlier. You can even hear the meme that QOPAnon is the pro-Black Party because Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. But I assume the question is about the present day, not about 19th or even 20th century.

Did the Ds cheat as much or more than the Rs, once upon a time? You betcha! Some think that JFK beat Nixon in 1960 only because of cheating; and that Dick Nixon conceded defeat for the good of the country rather than pursuing fraud allegations! But that was 62 years ago. The U.S.A. is not the same place now as it was then.

In recent decades, the Ds have increasingly become the Party of humanitarian values, democracy and fair play. The Rs no longer have any principles other than hatred, lying and greed. The Ds have an agenda which, whether smart or stupid, is intended to improve the lives of Americans. The Rs have no agenda but getting elected so they can keep stuffing their donors' pockets with loot.

Does this help?

 

[Gun Nut]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Forcing states to comply with the US Constitution is the role of the Federal Government... "trying to regulate every aspect..." is not what they do, except when the state in question is "trying to violate every right...". Like that shithole of the US, Texas.

 

[Tigers!]

From a scholarly paper titled "The Worst Partisan Gerrymanders in U.S. State Legislatures"

Every single one of the states just mentioned are states where it was the Republicans who rigged the districting to favor them. Read it slowly: "Every single one." Do the Democrats do it too? Let's keep reading:

...
• There were no state houses where the Republican party received a majority of the vote in 2018, but where the Democratic party won a majority of the legislative seats.

Let's repeat that: There were no state houses where the Republican party received a majority of the vote in 2018, but where the Democratic party won a majority of the legislative seats.



Beware:The Democratic Party traces its roots back to Thomas Jefferson in the 18th century. The Republican Party is "only" about 170 years old but is, more or less, heir to the Whig and Federalist Parties which trace back to their opposition to the ideals of Jefferson.

QOPAnon liars will be eager to say "Nanner nanner nanner your side does it too." But the examples they cite will be from decades ago, or even earlier. You can even hear the meme that QOPAnon is the pro-Black Party because Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. But I assume the question is about the present day, not about 19th or even 20th century.

Did the Ds cheat as much or more than the Rs, once upon a time? You betcha! Some think that JFK beat Nixon in 1960 only because of cheating; and that Dick Nixon conceded defeat for the good of the country rather than pursuing fraud allegations! But that was 62 years ago. The U.S.A. is not the same place now as it was then.

In recent decades, the Ds have increasingly become the Party of humanitarian values, democracy and fair play. The Rs no longer have any principles other than hatred, lying and greed. The Ds have an agenda which, whether smart or stupid, is intended to improve the lives of Americans. The Rs have no agenda but getting elected so they can keep stuffing their donors' pockets with loot.

Does this help?

Thank you for that info.
I do not have the interest of a citizen of the US but am curious.

 

[marc]

Redistricting plan in Texas, districts as they are now and what they plan:

 

[AdamWho]

We can do the experiment by allowing states to support themselves without tax money from the federal government (via wealthy states).

I am sure they will pull those boot straps right up...

 

[Elixir]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Forcing states to comply with the US Constitution is the role of the Federal Government... "trying to regulate every aspect..." is not what they do, except when the state in question is "trying to violate every right...". Like that shithole of the US, Texas.

That's short, to the point and entirely accurate. Which ensure that it will evoke no response from Trausti. The modern day "conservatives" are anti-democracy. The Constitution is the enshrinement of democratic principles, and anything attempting to enforce it is therefore their enemy.

 

[Trausti]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Forcing states to comply with the US Constitution is the role of the Federal Government... "trying to regulate every aspect..." is not what they do, except when the state in question is "trying to violate every right...". Like that shithole of the US, Texas.

The Constitution is six thousands words. Despite the authoritarian desires of many, it was not meant to displace state sovereignty. The main role of the new national government was regulation between the states not to supplant the state and local government.

 

[Trausti]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Forcing states to comply with the US Constitution is the role of the Federal Government... "trying to regulate every aspect..." is not what they do, except when the state in question is "trying to violate every right...". Like that shithole of the US, Texas.

That's short, to the point and entirely accurate. Which ensure that it will evoke no response from Trausti. The modern day "conservatives" are anti-democracy. The Constitution is the enshrinement of democratic principles, and anything attempting to enforce it is therefore their enemy.

It’s “anti-democracy” for states and their citizens to guard their sovereignty and exercise their own choices? Um, okay.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Forcing states to comply with the US Constitution is the role of the Federal Government... "trying to regulate every aspect..." is not what they do, except when the state in question is "trying to violate every right...". Like that shithole of the US, Texas.

The Constitution is six thousands words. Despite the authoritarian desires of many, it was not meant to displace state sovereignty. The main role of the new national government was regulation between the states not to supplant the state and local government.

So the executive calling the states and asking them to find more votes in their state’s elections would be unconstitutional? The justice department initiating investigations into state elections would also be unconstitutional, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Constitution is six thousands words.

Well, THE CONSTITUTION consists of THE CONSTITUTION, the Amendments to THE CONSTITUTION, and the SCOTUS decisions that amplify the words in THE CONSTITUTION and the Amendments. So, a teensy bit over 6K.