Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
So you don't believe in liberty?Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
So you don't believe in liberty?Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
The numbers come from comparing what money goes TO the federal gov't and what money comes FROM the federal gov't.
Where they earned their money before the secession is not relevant. They are now living in the south and have the income from the feds. Do you think they will go along with secession if they will be penniless afterwards?
I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.So you don't believe in liberty?if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.So you don't believe in liberty?The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.Besides, how will those states replace the income they get from the federal gov't? I doubt any of them send more taxes to Washington than they receive in federal monies.
if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
The numbers come from comparing what money goes TO the federal gov't and what money comes FROM the federal gov't.
Where they earned their money before the secession is not relevant. They are now living in the south and have the income from the feds. Do you think they will go along with secession if they will be penniless afterwards?
Yes it is relevant. Giving credit to a democrat state for income earned by republicans is as asinine as blaming republican states for federal democrat welfare programs in republican states.
You're still not listening. They were talking about rebelling against Obama's Executive orders that the people ignore federal laws written to protect the people. Ron called ignoring such orders, that are nothing more than Dictates from a self proclaimed Emperor, defacto session... aka. ignoring that which is clearly unconstitutional. The president should not be allowed to overrule congress.I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.So you don't believe in liberty?its not going to happen, but its fun to talk about it. Hmmmm, wonder if the people of Ukraine said that when they were still part of the USSR.
I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
No, that is not what I said at all. I am all for liberty and using the ballot box to make sure we preserve our liberties.
Secession will not grant more liberties.
You are STILL NOT LISTENING. The STATE DOES NOT SEND PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The people send personal federal income taxes, not the STATES. Giving political credit to the STATES for that which is earned and paid by the people, is LUDICROUS. You have been taken by a CON.You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.if the requirement to send money to DC went away, there would be plenty of money available to run those states with a balanced budget. Those "poor southern redneck states" would control most of the oil and gas in the country, the gulf ports, the seafood industry, and much of the agricultural production, not to mention auto factories, banks, and military bases.
The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
The numbers come from comparing what money goes TO the federal gov't and what money comes FROM the federal gov't.
Where they earned their money before the secession is not relevant. They are now living in the south and have the income from the feds. Do you think they will go along with secession if they will be penniless afterwards?
Yes it is relevant. Giving credit to a democrat state for income earned by republicans is as asinine as blaming republican states for federal democrat welfare programs in republican states.
Look, it boils down to this. If a state sends $10 to the feds in all the taxes paid, and then receives $15 in all the federal benefits, the state is not going to fare well when the fed is gone. Whether they are democrats or republicans does not change that at all.
You are STILL NOT LISTENING. The STATE DOES NOT SEND PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The people send personal federal income taxes, not the STATES. Giving political credit to the STATES for that which is earned and paid by the people, is LUDICROUS. You have been taken by a CON.You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.The states you mentioned, most at least, get more money from the feds than they send to them. So it would be a net loss in revenue. For some it would be a significant loss. The other things you mentioned are all private businesses. Unless you plan to tax them more than they are taxed now, it would not help.
The numbers come from comparing what money goes TO the federal gov't and what money comes FROM the federal gov't.
Where they earned their money before the secession is not relevant. They are now living in the south and have the income from the feds. Do you think they will go along with secession if they will be penniless afterwards?
Yes it is relevant. Giving credit to a democrat state for income earned by republicans is as asinine as blaming republican states for federal democrat welfare programs in republican states.
Look, it boils down to this. If a state sends $10 to the feds in all the taxes paid, and then receives $15 in all the federal benefits, the state is not going to fare well when the fed is gone. Whether they are democrats or republicans does not change that at all.
You're still not listening. They were talking about rebelling against Obama's Executive orders that the people ignore federal laws written to protect the people. Ron called ignoring such orders, that are nothing more than Dictates from a self proclaimed Emperor, defacto session... aka. ignoring that which is clearly unconstitutional. The president should not be allowed to overrule congress.I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.So you don't believe in liberty?I agree that it won't happen. But some seem sure that their lives will be so much better when if it does. Like corruption and incompetence are not going to happen any more.
I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
No, that is not what I said at all. I am all for liberty and using the ballot box to make sure we preserve our liberties.
Secession will not grant more liberties.
YOU ARE STILL NOT LISTENING... NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SECESSION. You have made an incorrect assumption that someone has called for secession. What this is about is insubordination, not secession.You're still not listening. They were talking about rebelling against Obama's Executive orders that the people ignore federal laws written to protect the people. Ron called ignoring such orders, that are nothing more than Dictates from a self proclaimed Emperor, defacto session... aka. ignoring that which is clearly unconstitutional. The president should not be allowed to overrule congress.I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.So you don't believe in liberty?
I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
No, that is not what I said at all. I am all for liberty and using the ballot box to make sure we preserve our liberties.
Secession will not grant more liberties.
Then take it to the SCOTUS and get it overturned. Pulling out of the United States is a ridiculous option to even pretend is legitimate.
You are STILL NOT LISTENING. The STATE DOES NOT SEND PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The people send personal federal income taxes, not the STATES. Giving political credit to the STATES for that which is earned and paid by the people, is LUDICROUS. You have been taken by a CON.You're confused. The democrats who post those lies about net loss are talking about things like SS, & medicare funding. IOW it's complete bullshit. It's common for people to move to less expensive states in retirement, but that does not mean they necessarily earned their income in the state they retire in.
The numbers come from comparing what money goes TO the federal gov't and what money comes FROM the federal gov't.
Where they earned their money before the secession is not relevant. They are now living in the south and have the income from the feds. Do you think they will go along with secession if they will be penniless afterwards?
Yes it is relevant. Giving credit to a democrat state for income earned by republicans is as asinine as blaming republican states for federal democrat welfare programs in republican states.
Look, it boils down to this. If a state sends $10 to the feds in all the taxes paid, and then receives $15 in all the federal benefits, the state is not going to fare well when the fed is gone. Whether they are democrats or republicans does not change that at all.
Ok, then compare what the people in those states send to the fed with what the people in those states receive from the federal gov't and tell me how it works out? Oh, and add in all the federal funds for highways, interstates, bridges, power stations ect ect. Several of the southern states cost the feds more than they contribute. And I am saying that as a lifelong southerner.
Yes it is Ron, yes it is... Need to look up my old fire team members.....
Geaux
========================================
Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it’s “good news.” Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.
“I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening,” Paul, the father of potential Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, told a gathering at the libertarian Mises Institute in late January. The event Paul was speaking at was titled “Breaking Away: The Case for Secession.”
Paul said secession would not be legislated by Congress, but would be de facto, predicting “when conditions break down…there’s gonna be an alternative.”
Ron Paul Good News That Secession Is Happening - BuzzFeed News
YOU ARE STILL NOT LISTENING... NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SECESSION. You have made an incorrect assumption that someone has called for secession. What this is about is insubordination, not secession.You're still not listening. They were talking about rebelling against Obama's Executive orders that the people ignore federal laws written to protect the people. Ron called ignoring such orders, that are nothing more than Dictates from a self proclaimed Emperor, defacto session... aka. ignoring that which is clearly unconstitutional. The president should not be allowed to overrule congress.I see. So basically you are saying we have no choice but to accept federal tyranny, because liberty is the liberty to be tyrants.I absolutely believe in liberty. What I don't believe is that we will have more liberty if the southern states secede. I also know we would have far more financial troubles afterwards.
And if you want to see corruption and incompetence, look at some of the state gov'ts in the south.
No, that is not what I said at all. I am all for liberty and using the ballot box to make sure we preserve our liberties.
Secession will not grant more liberties.
Then take it to the SCOTUS and get it overturned. Pulling out of the United States is a ridiculous option to even pretend is legitimate.
