Pretending that it is not a massive undertaking does not help as well. Nor does it mean Texas will maintain the same economic level without the US.
The US would also take their oil reserves back/military/funding/resources. That's a decent chunk of the Texas economy right there. The main point being it doesn't help Texas to secede from the Union. It may have some minimal gains but the risk is far greater then any rewards it is going to get.
Also I think you are devaluing the amount of federal funding Texas gets. I mean it is in the upper 50% of states for the amount of funding it receives from the federal government. It is ranked 24th if you're wondering. That's not chump change. Also I imagine the first Texan that needs a passport to go visit family is not going to be happy.
__________________ sig by Rao Kal El
Last edited by Newjak on Jul 8th, 2015 at 06:44 PM
Texas wouldn't be a world power. It would be a regional power with clout comparable to that of Spain or Australia, competing with Mexico for the #3 position in North America and that's all.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Even if Mexico had the military power to do so, I don't think Mexico really has the expansionist/irreidentist impulse, and America would never allow it.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
And pretending I was pretending it wasn't a massive undertaking is just plain dishonest, as well. Let's not devolve into shit slinging where we pretend points were made that weren't.
The counter: nor does it mean Texas will cease its current economic growth. Nor does it mean that Texas will not experience increased economic growth.
That's in your arbitrary scenario. In my scenario, which is based on reality, the split would be amicable. And bullshit petty childish things like you suggest would not be done. Because, you know, all of the reasons I outlined.
Risks that you're creating that would not actually happen in the real world. In the real world, very little would change if they successfully seceded except they'd have more money. Perhaps we differ on this because you think Texas would need to secede through violent or shitty means. In reality, that's not what would happen nor could it happen. It would happen because US Congress voted for it to happen and, if challenged, the Supreme Court would need to uphold the vote.
None of those are violent or vindictive means. And in order for congress to comfortably agree on something like this, there'd have to be a smooth transition. Meaning, none of this "ZOMG! All trade lost, derpy do!"
I also think you didn't read what I posted because you'd understand that Texas pays more in that it gets.
2014 numbers show Texas pays in, to the federal government, $117 billion. Billion. That's after you subtract out all the federal money: not just things like road money. All of it. I linked straight to the site which also included federal contracts as sources of revenue. 2015 showed a huge drop in federal funding for Texas but tax revenues did not come in...
wait a minute. Now you have me repeating myself. Just read my post again.
Depends on what you mean by regional power. I mean, because, clearly, it wouldn't be a regional power by some perspectives because it is already not a regional power but an international player without even seceding.
In other areas, it is definitely only a regional power. It is a rather arbitrary discussion.
But, it would be the 13th or 12th largest economy in the world if it did secede. Seems kind of silly to think it wouldn't be an international player when it already is as just a state. I don't think of places like Australia and Canada as being regional powers. Any of the top 20-30 nations are not "just regional powers."
Well, as you suggest, the distinction between world and regional powers can be muddy, but my personal definition of world power includes more than just economic importance, but also includes soft power output, military strength, influence in regional or international blocs, and diplomatic clout. Texas would probably hold average grades in all of these for quite some time.
As to the top 30 countries all being "more than regional powers," I'd point out that my motherland, Belgium, which is 25th on the list, *might* qualify as a world power ONLY because it hosts NATO and the EU in its capital. If it weren't for that, nothing about Belgium gives it global reach. Same for countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, South Korea, and Argentina. They can make waves in their own backyard, but can they resolve a crisis between world powers a continent away? Can they deploy a sizable military expedition to the opposite side of the planet in short order? Do they have the wherewithal to change a third world country's fortunes through massive, comprehensive infrastructure projects?
To me there are only a handful of world powers, and all but one or two of them have permanent seats on the UN Security Council, and there are another handful of countries who could be considered global powers by some definitions or who have clear potential to become global powers, (these would include India, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Mexico, and maybe Texas if it were independent) but they're not there yet and they may never get there.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
You're overlooking the influence TX would have on the US (I outlined why TX would have leverage on the US). Also, TX would be the US's new Israel.
That's odd. Belgium is an international player as all of the top countries. Why would you think that being the host country to NATO and the EU? And why is a country with a globalized economy not an international player when, by definition, having a globalized economy makes it an international player?
You have a really odd definition of "international player." I think you are putting far too much emphasis on internal military power. Real international power comes from resources, money, and people who scream about having a big stick (Russia). Texas stick would be smaller than other countries like, say, China's, obviously. But that's not the only way to be an international player.
Not even the US can so why do you think another country, with less resources and a smaller military, can?
Sure. NATO and the UN seem to be able to organize military campaigns. Additionally, have the US as a big sister seems to be a great choice. In this hypothetical, TX would have to split on good terms...and the US is all about protecting her resources.
Yes.
So now you are wanting to change the topic to "world powers" instead of countries who are international players? Seems you want to talk about something else. I believe, at this point, you want to talk about superpowers. But, in order for a country; by what seems to be your definition of international player; to be considered an international player, they just need to be able to have significant influence in more than one region at a time. Texas already has that. That much should be obvious because Texas is home to 54 of the Fortune 500 companies and Global 500 companies (I could not find that number but they are #1 out of the US states for the Global 500 company list).
So what are we talking about if you already concede this point? Of course Texas would be a international player. An TX will not secede anytime soon. That much is obvious. They need to get far more support from within TX and THEN from US Congress. I'd think that we'd need to see a 2/3 vote from Congress, similar to an amendment, because it would be that serious.
So before I continue with this dadudemon I think there is a disconnect with what we are saying. You are implying that I think the succession will be violent or petty. It could be but that is not central to my point.
You seem to think when Texas leaves the Union everything will be the same. You're making Texas to be that ex that still wants to be friends and have the other person buy it things. As well as keep all of the ex's stuff that is their in aprtment.
I'm not saying the US is going to be violent or petty. What I'm saying is that I don't see the US continuing to put resources into Texas majorly nor do I see the US really needing Texas. I also think it is foolish for you to think that the US is going to keep major American resources that were funded by the federal government in Texas. Like military bases or military equipment. Not without making Texas pay for it. I definitely don't see them leaving any missile defense systems or advanced tech in Texas. Or that the US would allow Texas to piggy back on their treaties with other countries. Saying they will is childish. Most of this would hopefully be peaceful but I could definite see the US sending in troops if Texas tried to play tough while the US would be getting it's stuff back.
From there it is a lot of what ifs with the Texas economy but I think they would be in for some growing pains and don't pretend the US losing Texas is the same as Texas losing the US. The US is and would still be a major super power in the world Texas would be a big ? But not a super power assuming they kept their economy the same without the backing of the US federal Goverment. Of course Texas would probably be allowed into NAFTA but that would probably go against what they want from a political standpoint.
__________________ sig by Rao Kal El
Last edited by Newjak on Jul 9th, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Since my post directly contradicts what you state I think, you're wrong. In other words, you're still not capturing my position appropriately and are using strawman arguments.
Regardless of what you think would happen, the US would actually lose money if Texas seceded if literally everything else stayed the same because Texas is a net positive tax payer to all of the monetary resources that the US puts into Texas. Texas has lots to gain and the US has lots to lose if Texas seceded. And, no, the US would not pull out military bases and contracts. Again, that's childish and petty. As Bardock42 touched on, they may scale back over time. But it wouldn't be like an ex moving out of an apartment on a whim. It would cost the US too much to just supplant all military investments overnight.
What you're not acknowledging or understanding is, even if all US military stuff ceased in TX, nothing of my points would change except maybe some numbers on the money US puts into TX (by the way, military contracts* are not even a majority of the money the US puts into TX: that includes bases).
But, let's be clear: you say the US would react like a petty child and I say they wouldn't. You say the US would pull out of Texas in every single way imaginable, I say they wouldn't. My justification is the requirements to get TX out of the union would require ridiculous amounts support from US Congress which would directly shit all over the notion that the US would react like a petty child (or as you said, exes and apartments).
*This includes military installations/bases, as well. Check the site I linked. It even shows where that money is going to, on a map, so you can see exactly what resources the US puts into TX. Cease all of it, even if those existing assets are removed, and it literally changes nothing on my point. TX still gets over $100 billion in funds, annually. These are funds they currently do not have because of being a state in the US.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 9th, 2015 at 01:23 PM
I'm sorry but your argument about the US removing resources out of Texas continues to be if they do so it would petty is ridiculous. There is nothing petty about the US removing vital resources from foreign soil instead of keeping them to freely bolster another countries resources and presence. Pretending that is petty is childish. It is Texas/you saying we're leaving and we're keeping your stuff for free because if you want it back it makes you look petty. That's not how international relations between countries work. Wanting to make sure vital US resources are in the US is not petty and definitely would happen if Texas removed itself from the Union.
Assets. Military assets, to be exact. And the funding that went with them. Texas definitely cannot, currently, count them as assets. So why would they be assets after a hypothetical secession?
That's an act of war, good sir! If they stole Texas resources when it was a sovereign nation, that's not going to look too good in the international community. It'd be worse than Russia v. Ukraine.
I think this is a more accurate wording: "Assuming the US would act petty and childish by stealing resources from a sovereign nation is stupid."
Those military assets do nothing. Remove military industrial equipment? Cool. Still the same for Texas. Remove a military base? Cool. Nothing changes. Why do you think it does anything? The money for those assets is already taken into account in the numbers I presented. So why do you think you have any sort of point? I've already covered it, by the numbers...it's moot.
Why do you think tanks, artillery, missiles, etc. create some sort of money for Texas?
Okay, this may be what you're missing. If the US goes, so does the money for the military bases. This is included in the "money" figures (remember my previous post and my initial one that linked the map showing where the money is going from the US Government?).
And the military bases are not just going to be dissolved immediately. Nor will NASA's assets. As I've been telling you, that type of knee-jerk reaction is petty and childish. That's not something that would happen in an amicable split that was authorized by the US. Sure, maybe if Texas won independence through violent means...but something tells me that even if that were possible, they'd take control of those assets, anyway, which still invalidates any point you think you have.
CBD products put up a convenient and enjoyable disposition to experience the effects of this compound. These gummies check in in various flavors, potencies, and formulations, providing users with controlled dosing and long-lasting effects. Many consumers recognize them for relaxation', note relief. In any way, its important to digest them responsibly, as effects may pilfer longer to recoil in compared to smoking or vaping. Forever check dosage guidelines and insure compliance with adjoining laws before purchasing or consuming.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Last edited by Bashar Teg on Mar 26th, 2025 at 01:08 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 8th, 2015 06:36 PM
