https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbotts-fight-biden-spark-warnings-civil-war-has-begun-1863910
We have talked about this before and it was dismissed as crazy talk but now even serious news sources are saying we may be approaching a civil war. Texas is starting to get in standoff with the federal government over the border and other states are joining. This is starting to get scary and we are not even at the 2024 elections. Again what happens to the labs if we actually enter like a cold civil war or states start to leave the Union? You guys keep saying this just nonsense talk but we are getting to the point where either side can no longer compromise, all you have to to do is extrapolate and you see how this can end.
17 comments:
I thought Texas was heavily dependent on the Federal government, and the rest of the US, for example many people there receive social security checks, or have other investments in Treasury bonds or the stock markets in New York, and so on. Not to mention the Amazon packages that stream in from other parts of the country, or the fact that people look forward to receiving US Mail. Indeed, Federal funds make up 20% or so of the state's revenue.
TX is not the only "needy" state. AL, MS, KY, TN...
NM is at the top of the list for "needy" states I believe...
Blogger Scooby said...
TX is not the only "needy" state. AL, MS, KY, TN...
1/27/2024 2:19 PM
Sigh.... none of these are actually needy states. The idea that there is all these red states that just take money from the US government is not even remotely accurate if you look at at actual income and resource generation. This is on top of the fact that the money that does come into states from government programs are going to blue areas and groups that vote blue. The actual red portion of the these states are net produces, in fact all these states are net producers.
This whole red state are poor states narrative is not something any economists believes in, it is a Huffington post talking point done by cheery picking of different measures. I will not do all the research for you, but a couple of points destroys this whole narrative rather rapidly. TX, AL, MS all happen to be major oil states, with Gulf of Mexico. TX is of course is huge net producer.
Another way to kill this red narrative is to look at Alaska, Montana, Wyoming and so on which are even more red than the states you mentioned, but do not take much money for programs.
Did the first poster imply that if you have stocks or bonds "New York owns that"? That takes the cake for having the least understanding of how the markets work I have ever seen. I have no idea where to even start with that, do you have the slightest concept of how these work, was this a troll post, this cannot be real.
Please people math is your friend, just apply a little of it sometime in your life.
Your comment is ideologically slanted and smells very much like MAGA.
However, I must be fair and publish it. It is not up to me to debate you. I urge other readers/contributors to offer
their views.
Your comment is ideologically slanted and smells very much like MAGA.
Scooby I am not MAGA, not even close. They are ideologically driven just like how some on the left is, I prefer facts and numbers.
I could say your are far left as you keep throwing out the same far left talking talking points, like "red states take money!". I think you are just repeating something you heard on NPR. Both the left and the right throw out slogans as though they are facts. You get stuff like
Covid will kill 5% the population from the left, and the vaccine will kill millions from right, yet some simple math can show both assertions are absurd . The right throws out "Trumps" electron got stolen because of those mystery ballots that showed up at night. It is pretty easy to explain those ballots came from big cities and people who did mail in voting, who will be mostly blue and the numbers easily work out.
On the other hand I see the left make absurd claims all the time such the the red state take money.
For example https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
Just looking at that you can see something is completely off with the definitions. On the economics blogs they debunk this stuff is minutes. It has to do with where the taxes are payed not where the money is generated. For example you can mine and get oil from Alabama but many of the corporations are located elsewhere. For example suppose I had some state A which produces a huge amount of oil, but the companies that run in a based elsewhere, in say state B, which has almost no natural resources. If you use simple minded definitions state B is pays more taxes and "gives" to United states while A takes. However when estimating the wealth or nation
is not simply saying who is paying taxes.
"We just let a TERRORIST cross the U.S. border, and they're laughing at us"
“Soon you will know who I am”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bbGRLr33Q&pp=ygUbU29vbiB5b3Ugd2lsbCBrbm93IHdobyBJIGFt
1/27/2024 10:19 PM
I said "it smells like MAGA" not "you are MAGA".
IF I were far left, I wouldn't even post your comments. Think about it.
Did the first poster imply that if you have stocks or bonds "New York owns that"?
No, I think the implicit point was, that if a state left the union, their ownership of assets might be somehow impaired, and they would no longer have representation to defend their ownership rights. For example, the various emergency powers of the president already include the following:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4309
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702
That means of course, for this an other reasons, Texas is not leaving anytime soon, and they are stuck in the position where, for example, much of their state is dependent on Federal money and all the rest.
IF I were far left, I wouldn't even post your comments. Think about it.
1/28/2024 8:27 AM
Sorry I did mean you are far left, just saying that I can call anything MAGA and anything Far Left.
I do not see how my point smells like MAGA, I am just pointing out that a common left wing talking point is not mathematically correct in terms of the way economists evaluate the wealth generation of regions.
I think a MAGA point would be along the lines that Texans or people from Alabama are real Americans or something like that which is kind of meaningless as it simply means anyone who votes like you is American.
Thank you for pointing out the nuances of MAGA versus just conservative.
Thanks for contributing and enriching the blog.
"That means of course, for this an other reasons, Texas is not leaving anytime soon, and they are stuck in the position where, for example, much of their state is dependent on Federal money and all the rest.
1/28/2024 8:55 AM"
I do not disagree that any state that leaves the Union is going to have a economic hit to some degree. I disagree with the idea that much Texas is "dependent on Federal money", I am not sure how on earth you come up with that. In fact few if any states are technically "dependent on Federal money" and Texas of all places has to be one of the least dependent due to the size, industry and large amount of resources. In terms of actual value, California is number 1, Texas is number 2, Florida is 3. Sure you can say but "Rhode Island" is super rich...so there. No Rhode Island has small population of rich people who made there money of the finance market. Texas
has a larger number of people and many more millionaires than Rhode Island, who make there money off industry, oil, farming, tech, and even finance. You see the difference now, and why this silly thing of comparing state by the average amount tax paid per individual is not a serious way to evaluate wealth or contributions to a nation. This is not a slam on Rhode Island but when you uses
these metrics you get stuff like Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey being wealthiest states, because you use average household income, (hint none of this is Gaussian).
I would doubt Texas would leave but not because of the loss of federal money but because a large segment of 40-50$ of the population would simply not want to leave the Union on ideological grounds
Take Alaska which is the top "tacker" state by many of these definitions. The "taking" in Alaska
is due to military bases. It could easily split off, with its own oil and other resources and be rather wealthy.
9:50 is schooling you, Scooby. Think about it.
It’s too bad we can’t make Greenland the 51st state. Trump was right!
1:52 -- what about the 47 percent of Americans who are not paying taxes, as Mitt Romney famously said? They wouldn't want to take responsibility for themselves, etc, etc, he said, wouldn't those people be an example of how much of the state is somehow dependent on Federal money?
Also, the only reason for the endless Federal money, is that our government has a global reserve currency and is the only global superpower. Would Texas have the ability to print and borrow endless funds, and how much tax would it have to collect otherwise?
What about the so-called oil curse, would this affect Texas?
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691159638/the-oil-curse
Venezuela was at one time, as wealthy per capita as many developed nations in the Northern Hemisphere, are you sure Texas would not end up the same way?
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
Maybe Texas would be a more viable country if they took over Mexico.
Post a Comment