Quantcast

War Between The States Solved? Your Opinion

snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques 2012/11/15 21:12:27
Its a slug-fest folks:

Consider the following as a constitutional alternative to unravelling the status quo: At present, the U.S. has several Territories to include Guam, Puerto Rico, CNMI, USVI and American Samoa. The residents are U.S. citizens and they do not pay federal income tax. However, as collective dependents of the U.S., they receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year in goodies to include food stamps, HUD housing, etc., from Uncle Sam. In exchange, they are not allowed to vote in the Presidential election and they do not have U.S. Senators. However, each territory is allowed one non-voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. This person is selected by the territorial Governor. What if the red states decided that they no longer want to be States and opted to reverting back to being U.S. Territories? The blue states would get the luxury of supporting these Territories with goodies through their taxes. Since the residents of blue states claim to have a monopoly on compassion, they shouldn't have a problem with their financial support of the Territories. Thus, the argument is that the red states aren't seceding from the Union, they are opting to becoming dependent's of the Union. Problem solved.

Is this the answer to our woes?

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Question Closed

Top Opinion

  • Tee Quake 2012/11/16 01:30:44
    Tee Quake
    +10
    War between the states is far from solved. In fact, this is the first post I have seen that even has the balls to acknowledge that there is a war between the states. And the war breaks down along very clearly delineated lines of demarcation: we have the states that are going to knuckle-under to Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama's power grab - and essentially agree to everything Obama demands necessary, to create his socialist soft tyranny - for which these compliant states will receive all manner of federal money (IE., the democrat, blue states); and you will have the red, Republican states, that will initially fight Obama's illegal determinate of which states (blue) get federal aid and which states starve (red). It's all part and parcel of Obama's master plan to turn America into a socialist tyranny; a tyranny that would make JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, AND THOMAS JEFFERSON , LITERALLY SICK TO THEIR STOMACHS. Shame on Obama and every American sell-out who supports his unholy plan.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • ★Calliope★ 2012/11/17 00:07:36
    ★Calliope★
    +2
    Works for me.

    I'd never petition for US statehood, then.
  • ★Calliope★ ★Calliope★ 2012/11/17 01:32:40
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    I should amend that.. Not while PROGGIES are in the drivers seat. They want total dependence.
  • C:\DOS> 2012/11/16 18:23:07
    C:\DOS>
    +1
    "The blue states would get the luxury of supporting these Territories with goodies through their taxes."

    Blue states would get the luxury of no longer having to support red states.

    According to figures from the IRS, over the three year period from 2007-2009, states that voted for Romney received an average of $1.25 in federal monies for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. Blue states averaged $1.03. Of the top ten mooching states, seven were red, three blue. Of the bottom ten, seven were blue, three were red.

    Here are the top ten moochers, how much they paid in federal taxes, and how much they received in federal monies (both in billions):

    MS 11.06 31.27
    WV 6.58 18.51
    NM 8.8 24.5
    HI 7.63 18.2
    AK 4.57 10.25
    AL 22.94 50.59
    SC 19.56 41.74
    MT 4.46 9.48
    ME 6.38 12.76
    KY 23.8 46.61

    Here are the bottom ten:

    TX 220.53 202.04
    AS 27.1 24.77
    CO 44.05 39.61
    RI 11.5 10.2
    NE 18.87 15.5
    NY 222.6 175.37
    IL 128.82 101.39
    CT 51.11 37.78
    NJ 115.92 71.53
    MN 75.79 40.7

    Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

    Note the same was true in 2005:

    http://content.ksg.harvard.ed...

    And in 2000:

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/ta...
    "The blue states would get the luxury of supporting these Territories with goodies through their taxes."

    Blue states would get the luxury of no longer having to support red states.

    According to figures from the IRS, over the three year period from 2007-2009, states that voted for Romney received an average of $1.25 in federal monies for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. Blue states averaged $1.03. Of the top ten mooching states, seven were red, three blue. Of the bottom ten, seven were blue, three were red.

    Here are the top ten moochers, how much they paid in federal taxes, and how much they received in federal monies (both in billions):

    MS 11.06 31.27
    WV 6.58 18.51
    NM 8.8 24.5
    HI 7.63 18.2
    AK 4.57 10.25
    AL 22.94 50.59
    SC 19.56 41.74
    MT 4.46 9.48
    ME 6.38 12.76
    KY 23.8 46.61

    Here are the bottom ten:

    TX 220.53 202.04
    AS 27.1 24.77
    CO 44.05 39.61
    RI 11.5 10.2
    NE 18.87 15.5
    NY 222.6 175.37
    IL 128.82 101.39
    CT 51.11 37.78
    NJ 115.92 71.53
    MN 75.79 40.7

    Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

    Note the same was true in 2005:

    http://content.ksg.harvard.ed...

    And in 2000:

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/ta...
    (more)
  • ★Calliope★ C:\DOS> 2012/11/17 00:13:18
    ★Calliope★
    +3
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/ta...
    Taxprof.typepad.com Blog = 'page not found' for the research.
    http://content.ksg.harvard.ed...
    Is a blog and no research noted. It's AN OPINION.
    Daily BEAST? REALLY?
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
    No research noted. NONE.

    Forgive us if we don't believe those stats. Each and every one has an agenda. Each is anti Tea Party. Each is anti-Republican.
  • C:\DOS> ★Calliope★ 2012/11/17 02:26:41 (edited)
    C:\DOS>
    "'page not found' for the research"

    So instead of addressing the data, you look for an excuse to ignore it. Here's the link (which took me about ten seconds to find) to the '04 report, which looks at data from FY '03:

    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

    Here are the blog entries for their '06 (looking at FYs '94 and '04) and '07 (FY '05) reports:

    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...
    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

    And here are links to the complete data sets for their '04 and '06 reports:

    http://taxfoundation.org/site...
    http://taxfoundation.org/site...

    "Is a blog and no research noted."

    Well, sure, if you ignore the graph and references to the TF underneath it.

    "Daily BEAST? REALLY?"

    Yes, really. Skip the ad hominems and deal with the data. If you think the DB faked the numbers then disproving them should be trivial. Go ahead; I'll wait.

    "Each and every one has an agenda. Each is anti Tea Party. Each is anti-Republican."

    {GUFFAW} And *pro*-Tea Party/*pro*-Republican is NOT an agenda?!

    As I said, if all you've got is ad hominems, then you've got nothing. If you think the sites I've linked to are fudging or faking numbers to fit an agenda, exposing their fraud should be a walk in the park.

    Got any better numbers?
    "'page not found' for the research"

    So instead of addressing the data, you look for an excuse to ignore it. Here's the link (which took me about ten seconds to find) to the '04 report, which looks at data from FY '03:

    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

    Here are the blog entries for their '06 (looking at FYs '94 and '04) and '07 (FY '05) reports:

    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...
    http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

    And here are links to the complete data sets for their '04 and '06 reports:

    http://taxfoundation.org/site...
    http://taxfoundation.org/site...

    "Is a blog and no research noted."

    Well, sure, if you ignore the graph and references to the TF underneath it.

    "Daily BEAST? REALLY?"

    Yes, really. Skip the ad hominems and deal with the data. If you think the DB faked the numbers then disproving them should be trivial. Go ahead; I'll wait.

    "Each and every one has an agenda. Each is anti Tea Party. Each is anti-Republican."

    {GUFFAW} And *pro*-Tea Party/*pro*-Republican is NOT an agenda?!

    As I said, if all you've got is ad hominems, then you've got nothing. If you think the sites I've linked to are fudging or faking numbers to fit an agenda, exposing their fraud should be a walk in the park.

    Got any better numbers?
    (more)
  • ★Calliope★ C:\DOS> 2012/11/17 03:35:41
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    I was acting like a typical progressive or democrat liberal. But I should also point out that ... THAT website is NOT a branch of the government. It's not impartial or bipartisan. AND solicits DONATIONS. Obviously another site with an agenda.

    YOU certainly have an agenda. You cite figures that play into your OPINION and you don't happen to delve into WHAT those states mean. Or offer any explanation as to WHY those stats appear as they do. Naw.. just post to say how draining and backward you think 'blue' states are. That's the ad hominem you have demonstrated. Don't climb on the high horse when you are more than guilty of the charge you level against me.

    You cherry pick data from biased sources. Get objective data - I'll entertain it. I'm not going to do your research for you. It's hardly 'ad hominems' to question biased sources or agenda for that matter.
  • C:\DOS> ★Calliope★ 2012/11/17 07:56:34 (edited)
    C:\DOS>
    You commit ad hominems when you accuse (without evidence) sites of bias for the sole purpose of attempting to evade the message.

    "THAT website is NOT a branch of the government."

    And your point is only government websites can be unbiased? BS. But fine. Google "consolidated federal funds report for fiscal year" and tack on whatever FY you're interested in. There. Now I've done your homework for you.

    "It's not impartial or bipartisan. AND solicits DONATIONS. Obviously another site with an agenda."

    Are you accusing the Tax Foundation of liberal bias? Seriously?! Now THAT's funny. If anything, it leans right. From Wikipedia:

    "[I]t has been described as having a 'pro-business leaning' and it has ties to various conservative groups."

    You can't even get your ad hominems right.

    "you don't happen to delve into WHAT those states mean"

    I note you haven't, either. You simply ignore them.

    What the data mean is simply this: the conservative assumption that Obama is all about redistributing hard-working conservatives' tax money to liberal leeches is wrong; if anything, wealth redistribution flows the other direction.

    "Or offer any explanation as to WHY those stats appear as they do"

    That's easy enough: blame a progressive federal income tax. Blue states tend to be richer than red states, hence they pay...





























    You commit ad hominems when you accuse (without evidence) sites of bias for the sole purpose of attempting to evade the message.

    "THAT website is NOT a branch of the government."

    And your point is only government websites can be unbiased? BS. But fine. Google "consolidated federal funds report for fiscal year" and tack on whatever FY you're interested in. There. Now I've done your homework for you.

    "It's not impartial or bipartisan. AND solicits DONATIONS. Obviously another site with an agenda."

    Are you accusing the Tax Foundation of liberal bias? Seriously?! Now THAT's funny. If anything, it leans right. From Wikipedia:

    "[I]t has been described as having a 'pro-business leaning' and it has ties to various conservative groups."

    You can't even get your ad hominems right.

    "you don't happen to delve into WHAT those states mean"

    I note you haven't, either. You simply ignore them.

    What the data mean is simply this: the conservative assumption that Obama is all about redistributing hard-working conservatives' tax money to liberal leeches is wrong; if anything, wealth redistribution flows the other direction.

    "Or offer any explanation as to WHY those stats appear as they do"

    That's easy enough: blame a progressive federal income tax. Blue states tend to be richer than red states, hence they pay more federal taxes.

    "Don't climb on the high horse when you are more than guilty of the charge you level against me."

    I charged you with committing ad hominems. If you think I've committed an ad hominem in this discussion, I suggest you don't know what ad hominem means. In any case, before I can ignore any of your data, you have to actually provide some.

    "You cherry pick data from biased sources."

    Prove it. Show me the data I've ignored. Discuss numbers, don't hide behind accusations.

    "Get objective data - I'll entertain it."

    Horse hockey. I gave you objective data. Lots of it. Instead of addressing it, you just want to play shoot-the-messenger.

    "I'm not going to do your research for you."

    {Chortle}. You haven't even done YOUR research. I did mine. Read my previous posts.

    Again, if you think the numbers I've presented are wrong, prove it. Don't accuse the Tax Foundation of liberal bias {chuckle}; discuss the problems with its methodologies. If the Daily Beast or Paul Caron or Jeff Frankels are faking their numbers, a child should be able to prove it. So go ahead; I'm still waiting. If you've got better numbers (you don't), let's see them. If all you've got is ad hominems and evasions, then you have nothing relevant to say.

    Once again, according to the (conservative-leaning) Tax Foundation, red states take more from federal coffers than they pay in. Blue states do too -- just barely -- but red states take more, and have done so for at least the past twenty years.

    Now, if you want to look at net contribution per capita rather than ratio of benefits received to taxes paid, Wikipedia (which you'll now accuse of bias) has the numbers from FY 2007:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...

    Note that, once again, the table starts out mostly blue and turns redder as you move down. Of the twenty states who pay in more than they receive back, fourteen are blue. Of the thirty states that receive more federal money than they pay in, eighteen are red. On average, blue states contributed $1262 per capita to the federal government more than they received. Red states received $599 per capita more than they paid in.

    Conclusion: "Democratic-leaning states tend to be net contributors to the federal budget while Republican-leaning states are more often net recipients of federal spending."

    Now, let's see YOUR numbers.
    (more)
  • frankie C:\DOS> 2012/11/22 03:36:45
    frankie
    +2
    bottem line. people are fed up with living under a wanna be one man goverment that want total control of what we do what we say what we eat where we work how much we can make . he breaks all laws. he by passes congress and they just sit and let him do as he pleases this is not the america we know and people are wanting different than what he is offering. so put out all the numbers of whstever. the people wanting to secede should be allowed to. he said get 25,000 votes well they did. so he should do the right thing and honor what he said.
  • C:\DOS> frankie 2012/11/23 09:27:12 (edited)
    C:\DOS>
    "this is not the america we know"

    Certainly the alternate universe you just described is not the America *I* know.

    "people are wanting different than what he is offering"

    Ah, that explains why we just voted him back in. People were confused and thought they were supposed to vote for the candidate they DIDN'T want?

    "he said get 25,000 votes well they did. so he should do the right thing and honor what he said."

    He will, of course. But I'm curious as to what it is YOU think he said he'd do.
  • ★Calliope★ frankie 2012/11/25 02:42:15
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Excellent comment.
  • Annie~P... frankie 2012/12/16 07:35:27
  • ★Calliope★ C:\DOS> 2012/11/25 02:42:47
    ★Calliope★
    *yawn*
  • RJeffreySavlov 2012/11/16 17:20:55
    RJeffreySavlov
    +3
    Great Idea. The Blues would be sung in those states as they would all be heading for bankruptcy court and their idiot leaders would be tared feathered and run out of town. Maybe if we did just let latter the whole concept would not be necessary.
  • Not stupid 2012/11/16 16:50:28
    Not stupid
    So basically you are saying if the conservatives can't win they don't want to play?

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstati...
  • ★Calliope★ Not stupid 2012/11/17 00:14:40
    ★Calliope★
    +3
    Yeah, just like the DEMS in 2004.

    democrats crying babies
  • snell/G... Not stupid 2012/11/17 01:14:57 (edited)
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +3
    Perhaps next time you shouldnt make reference to your not being stupid.....
    libs with heads stuck up their ass

    trolls

    .....now, go out in the street and play like a good little trollie....
  • ★Calliope★ snell/G... 2012/11/17 01:33:40
    ★Calliope★
    +2
    *snort* Now that made me laugh, my dear!
  • Annie~P... Not stupid 2012/11/21 08:56:38
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +1
    Conservatives won, demorats just counted the vote.
  • frankie Annie~P... 2012/11/22 03:38:14
    frankie
    +1
    the voting is frsaudulent . by the counters.
  • dick 2012/11/16 16:37:56
    dick
    +3
    I like the idea but I don,t see the libers allowing that to happen!
  • ★Calliope★ dick 2012/11/17 00:16:03
    ★Calliope★
    +2
    Seems they'd love it, right? Then they could wallow in true socialistic bliss. No pesky tea party'ers, no RETHUGS, No religious.
  • frankie ★Calliope★ 2012/11/22 03:39:07
    frankie
    +1
    nope. only mulims to tell them what to do. welcome to it.
  • snell/G... dick 2012/11/17 01:19:42
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +2
    ....they wouldn't
  • ★Calliope★ snell/G... 2012/11/17 01:34:14
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    Jeez... darlin.

    Wonder why? (insert eyeroll)
  • Bud 2012/11/16 16:03:37
    Bud
    The answer to our woes is to suck it up and go on with our lives. The election is over and Obama won, we have to deal with it and wait until the next election when the 22nd. amendment applies.

    Bud
  • snell/G... Bud 2012/11/17 01:25:28 (edited)
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +2
    You're right about one thing and that is we ARE getting on with our lives. With one exception: We're revealing the kind of dirt bag POTUS YOU put in the White House in the first place - then because you're color blind & chose to ignore his Treasonous ways - gave him a second term to continue to screw America and good decent folks. You libs are all worthless bits of humanity. But God died for you to....but i ain't God!

    obama didn't 'win' he cheated, coerced, knived, lied, bought, his way back into the House. You're an idiot and a fool!
  • frankie Bud 2012/11/22 03:40:07
    frankie
    +1
    bud glad you are happy with it. there will be nothing left of america in four years.
  • Racefish 2012/11/16 14:18:48
    Racefish
    +3
    Could we legally do that?
  • C:\DOS> Racefish 2012/11/16 16:16:50
    C:\DOS>
    No. Secession is illegal.
  • Racefish C:\DOS> 2012/11/16 17:48:28
    Racefish
    +1
    Show me where it says that.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/co...
  • C:\DOS> Racefish 2012/11/16 18:36:35 (edited)
    C:\DOS>
    It's in the Preamble. See Texas v. White (1869):

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/su...

    Scroll down to page 725. Or just do a search at the above link for "more perfect union".
  • Racefish C:\DOS> 2012/11/16 18:43:26 (edited)
    Racefish
    +2
    ibid; There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

    It is still "legal" If applied for and voted by Congress. Thus the phrase, " consent of the States."

    Oh, by the way, there is nothing in the Preamble that defines "powers". It's merely the same as a mission statement.
  • C:\DOS> Racefish 2012/11/16 18:46:06
    C:\DOS>
    Ah. Good luck with that.
  • Racefish C:\DOS> 2012/11/16 18:50:40
    Racefish
    +2
    Chances are none will. The thing is to show how many are actually upset by what's going on now.
  • frankie Racefish 2012/11/22 03:42:54
    frankie
    +1
    well the states have concented. and put your spin on it as always. when you don;t like the laws our country was built on you just make up your own . you have a good teacher.
  • Racefish frankie 2012/11/23 15:58:09
    Racefish
    +1
    No, the states didn't consent. These petitions are filed by individuals for the most part and don't come from the state Attorney General with the Governor's signature. Besides, the various state's Legislatures have to put their stamp on it as well. So far it's been mostly grumblings which may or may not lead to further state action.
  • ★Calliope★ C:\DOS> 2012/11/17 00:16:33
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    It is not illegal.
  • ★Calliope★ C:\DOS> 2012/11/17 00:16:24
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    It's not illegal.
  • Annie~P... C:\DOS> 2012/11/21 08:58:21
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    How convenient for marxist regressive demorats and how fast you came back with that answer.
  • C:\DOS> Annie~P... 2012/11/21 09:23:29
    C:\DOS>
    Yeah, well, truth is like that.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 08:38:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals