Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes in Trump rebuke. Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense.

[The Barbarian]

But in the case of the examples of federal services I mentioned, they're not "giving up their income", they're paying for a service.

I would hope so. The payments leaving California are welfare for less-prosperous (mostly red) states that need those services.

 

[The Barbarian]

One of the most direct ways to reduce federal expenditures is to just help most red states (and a couple of blue ones) to achieve a better economy, education, and economic activity.

There's a marked disparity in IQ between red states and blue states. It doesn't mean Trump voters are intrinsically dumber than democrats; since IQ is largely a matter of education, it's clear that improving schools in red states would help. Not all of them. Some red states do pretty well.

https://medium.com/@tgof137/whats-the-average-iq-of-trump-voters-b46603548b35

Another issue is health. Again, red states tend to have unhealthier people with shorter lifespans. And that takes a disproportionate amount of federal funding for healthcare.

Additional funding that targeted change rather than merely throwing money at the problem would help both blue states in the SW, with large immigrant populations as well as red states in the Southeast, with other causes that account for the need of federal dollars.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's the same issues have been debated endlessly over Texas seceding from the Union.

I'm surprised at the number of Texans who believe that the Treaty of Annexation gives Texas the right to secede. It did give Texas the right to break the state into a number of smaller states, although I believe the window for that has passed long ago.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm surprised at the number of Texans who believe that the Treaty of Annexation gives Texas the right to secede. It did give Texas the right to break the state into a number of smaller states, although I believe the window for that has passed long ago.

Your post prompted me to read the treaty. The annexation was voluntary, according to the will of the Texas people. I didn't find any provision prohibiting later secession.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your post prompted me to read the treaty. The annexation was voluntary, according to the will of the Texas people. I didn't find any provision prohibiting later secession.

The Constitution provides no mechanism for withdrawal, especially unilateral withdrawal. It is the Constitution that Texas agreed to with statehood.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your post prompted me to read the treaty. The annexation was voluntary, according to the will of the Texas people. I didn't find any provision prohibiting later secession.

The interpretation is that a state can elect to join the Union, but cannot elect to leave. The one important thing (besides the opportunity to make several states out of Texas) is that the water rights under the Spanish Land Grants remain in force. The Corps of Engineers learned about this when they channelized the San Antonio River, depriving some farmers of access to water. The lawyers for the Corps laughed at the plaintiffs since federal law immunizes the Corp from lawsuits. Then the plaintiff's lawyers pointed out the rights that were kept even under annexation. A number of farmers retired on the proceeds.

 

[Chesterton]

The Constitution provides no mechanism for withdrawal, especially unilateral withdrawal. It is the Constitution that Texas agreed to with statehood.

The fact that the constitution provides no mechanism for withdrawal does not mean anything. If I sign a contract with you to sell you my product, and the contract doesn't say I can't stop selling to you whenever I want, then I can stop whenever I want.

Plus, there's the 10th Amendment, which could be interpreted as a mechanism for withdrawal.

 

[Chesterton]

The interpretation is that a state can elect to join the Union, but cannot elect to leave.

Can you point out to me the part of the treaty which allows for that interpretation?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The fact that the constitution provides no mechanism for withdrawal does not mean anything. If I sign a contract with you to sell you my product, and the contract doesn't say I can't stop selling to you whenever I want, then I can stop whenever I want.

It's not a sales contract. It is an act of union. The EU charter includes a withdrawal provision, so withdrawal is a viable notion in the EU. The US Constitution does not.

Plus, there's the 10th Amendment, which could be interpreted as a mechanism for withdrawal.

Only a secesh would back that vacuous notion -- WTS

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can you point out to me the part of the treaty which allows for that interpretation?

It's not a treaty, it's a national constitution.

 

[Chesterton]

It's not a sales contract. It is an act of union. The EU charter includes a withdrawal provision, so withdrawal is a viable notion in the EU. The US Constitution does not.

No. It's very simple. If there's no law prohibiting you from walking your dog, you're free to walk your dog.

Only a secesh would back that vacuous notion -- WTS

People who disagree about things have different notions about those things. Most of the people of the original 13 American colonies had different notions than those of King George.

It's not a treaty, it's a national constitution.

Pay attention. We were talking about the treaty.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. It's very simple. If there's no law prohibiting you from walking your dog, you're free to walk your dog.

People who disagree about things have different notions about those things. Most of the people of the original 13 American colonies had different notions than those of King George.

Pay attention. We were talking about the treaty.

What treaty? We're talking about ratifying the Constitution as a new state.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That money they send to those federal facilities benefits the whole nation, they just happen to be located in certain states where it makes sense.

For instance, the major defense contractors are located in states like Maryland and Virginia, due to their close proximity to DC.

Military testing facilities are located in states where it's desert climate and with large areas of sparsely populated land. (like Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada)
-- because you can't test rockets and new military weaponry & vehicles in a densely populated New England state.


To be fair, some bias comes into play regarding the "donor state" conversation going in the other direction as well.

The fact that states like California became the home of the entertainment industry (back in 1920's), and New York became the seat of the financial sector (in the 19th century) -- therefore rich people moved there (and continued to do so) skews things as well.


So what you end up with is states (with disproportionate amounts of uber rich people, the ones who are actually paying most of those taxes -- as a residual effect of industry seating that happened over 100 years ago) coasting off of that, and then depicting it as if their "donor state" status is somehow evidence of their current form of governance being "the right way".

States such as California and New York are prosperous and attract affluent individuals and many Americans, making them donor states. Entrepreneurs who invest significant amounts of capital prefer relocating to New York, California, or Minnesota over Mississippi or Alabama due to their superior infrastructure, roads, airports, and high-quality education systems. These elements draw people and investments. It is unlikely that a tech billionaire would choose to move to Mississippi to establish a tech industry.

Reducing corporate taxes and advocating for small business tax relief does not necessarily attract multinational corporations to red states. While tax cuts serve as an incentive, thriving businesses require robust infrastructure, roads, healthcare, and education services. These services necessitate funding, and if local policies emphasize tax cuts over investment in infrastructure, economic growth may be hindered.

Social policies also play a role in economic development. In recent years, numerous small businesses have relocated from California or New York to red states due to high taxes and regulations. However, some of these businesses are now returning to blue states because of specific social policies. States such as Alabama, Oklahoma, and Florida have enacted stringent abortion laws, which pose challenges for younger generations to remain in these locations.

California and New York City have not merely coasted on a century of economic success, but continually built upon it. Palo Alto and Silicon Valley were not products of Hollywood; rather, superior services attracted billion-dollar businesses to these regions.

Many Red states long for the 1950s era of factory work and prosperity, but that economy is gone and traditional jobs are disappearing. These states must modernize their policies to adapt. However, there is more focus on social issues like gay pride parades and transgender individuals rather than addressing economic dependencies on donor states.

 

[Chesterton]

What treaty? We're talking about ratifying the Constitution as a new state.

Avalon Project - The Treaty of Annexation - Texas; April 12, 1844

avalon.law.yale.edu

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Land commandeered by the federal government (for federal use) would've been out of the control of any current state-level government.

Nor does the state-level government have any real control over what private business opt to bid on federal contracts for things like defense.


The point I was making was that donor vs. recipient states (by the shallow metrics people use to define it) isn't a reflection of "which type of governance is better (liberal vs. conservative)" -- but that's how it's spun.


California: "See, we're clearly doing it right, because we send more money to the government then we get back -- the fact that <insert red state here> needs more federal money coming is is proof that the liberal way is the right way"

...when that's not the case at all. The uniqueness of the situation that states like California and New York are in (due to historical things that have nothing to do with their current style of governance) have little to do with it.

Despite my conservative views, I acknowledge the achievements of California and New York under liberal policies. However, you refuse to give credit where it is due.

These states are successful, not because financial services or Hollywood established their industry 100 years ago. They are successful due to attracting a diverse population of Americans, including the wealthy, educated, and working class. Additionally, they have drawn foreign investors to open businesses within these states.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Avalon Project - The Treaty of Annexation - Texas; April 12, 1844

avalon.law.yale.edu

HAHAHAHAHA. I think Texas voided any claims to that treaty when they succeeded, not that I think the "terms" had any validity in the first place. A state is a state.

 

[Chesterton]

HAHAHAHAHA. I think Texas voided any claims to that treaty when they succeeded, not that I think the "terms" had any validity in the first place. A state is a state.

I've no idea what this post is trying to say.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've no idea what this post is trying to say.

Texas ain't special. They are just a state. I don't know what they have to do with California anyway.

 

[Chesterton]

Texas ain't special. They are just a state. I don't know what they have to do with California anyway.

Texas is special, but I agree this is off topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Texas is special, but I agree this is off topic.

Texas is a state, just like Wyoming is a state.