4 ms·

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's stupid. Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway: 1) oil is a g

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's stupid. Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway: 1) oil is a global commodity, so it really doesn't matter where it's located. Exxon will still pump it from the ground and sell it to the highest bidder. No change. 2) Texas gets about $0.95 back for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, so we'd lose a tiny surplus there. However losing Texas from the Union would mean that we're less likely to have Texans leading us into expensive wars, and pushing for expensive military projects that mostly benefit Texas. 3) Losing military installations isn't a bad thing. The military is primarily a welfare jobs program for red states, and one that enables all sorts of other overspending. Losing military installations is a benefit. 4) Losing military recruits is, similarly, a good thing. Not just because it starves the military, but because Texas' overrepresentation in the military is because Texas has a larger than average pool of unskilled labor. You can keep your unskilled labor, the world is changing in a way that makes those people an increasingly larger liability. 5) Texas losing the benefits of the Union is only bad if you're a Texan. As for the rest of us, it eliminates a source of religious and political extremism. This is not dumb. This is not stupid. The US would be a stronger, better country if Texas left the union. I get that you disagree, because you're from Texas and smart enough to realize that it's in your personal self-interest to stay in the USA. But Texas isn't good for America, and it's not dumb or stupid to want it gone.

cthalupa 11y ago
1) And now the money for that oil is going to Texas instead of the US 2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even using it, it's not just about the difference in what gets paid vs. what gets spent. Texas is the 2nd highest state in gross collections. If you remove the tax revenue from Texas, it is nearly one tenth of the entire tax collection for the US. 2b) George Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut. What war have Texans gotten the US into outside of the one with Mexico in the 1800s? 3) The US - and I'm sure you'll blame Texas for this, somehow - has put itself in a position of needing the military. Removing Texas won't remove the Republican party or the neo-con hawks running it. Unless you can get rid of all of them too, you'll be doing the same things the US has always done, but now with a reduced ability to do it. 4) See above. Also, larger than average pool of unskilled labor? Texas sits quite near the middle on per capita income, while having a severely reduced cost of living compared to most of the states that sit above it. Adjusted for that, it's in the top half. 5) Well, yes. Of course Texas losing the benefits of the Union is bad for Texas. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with this particular point. You've made up Texas to be a bogeyman for everything you feel is wrong with the US, and are acting as if it is responsible for every poor policy the US government has made. If you want to pin all that ails the Union on one state, well, be my guest. It's no different than the far right idiots who say the same thing about California.

cthalupa 11y ago

1) And now the money for that oil is going to Texas instead of the US 2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even using it, it's not just about the difference in what gets paid vs. what gets spent. Texas is the 2nd highest state in gross collections. If you remove the tax revenue from Texas, it is nearly one tenth of the entire tax collection for the US. 2b) George Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut. What war have Texans gotten the US into outside of the one with Mexico in the 1800s? 3) The US - and I'm sure you'll blame Texas for this, somehow - has put itself in a position of needing the military. Removing Texas won't remove the Republican party or the neo-con hawks running it. Unless you can get rid of all of them too, you'll be doing the same things the US has always done, but now with a reduced ability to do it. 4) See above. Also, larger than average pool of unskilled labor? Texas sits quite near the middle on per capita income, while having a severely reduced cost of living compared to most of the states that sit above it. Adjusted for that, it's in the top half. 5) Well, yes. Of course Texas losing the benefits of the Union is bad for Texas. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with this particular point. You've made up Texas to be a bogeyman for everything you feel is wrong with the US, and are acting as if it is responsible for every poor policy the US government has made. If you want to pin all that ails the Union on one state, well, be my guest. It's no different than the far right idiots who say the same thing about California.