idaho to sue over h/care

[Butthead]

this is going to get good.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0

one of these days, a big state is going to refuse to submit the taxes from its citizens to the fed. then it's on.

[Karl Hungus]

The states that send in more than they get back should go first.

The rugged individualists in Alaska will probably be the last ones off the federal tit. Not sure where Idaho is on that list. Or Georgia for that matter.

It's kinda laughable really. South Carolina didn't sue the USA over slavery. The real Tea Party guys didn't sue the King.

[impalanar]

The states that send in more than they get back should go first.

The rugged individualists in Alaska will probably be the last ones off the federal tit. Not sure where Idaho is on that list. Or Georgia for that matter.

It's kinda laughable really. South Carolina didn't sue the USA over slavery. The real Tea Party guys didn't sue the King.

Are you saying that people should lead an armed insurrection against the Federal Government?

[winmutt]

Are you saying that people should lead an armed insurrection against the Federal Government?

Are you saying that there is any chance in hell it would work?

[impalanar]

Are you saying that there is any chance in hell it would work?

Let me explain my post: I asked a question, no where in that question did I imply anything as to the chances of success for what I believed the poster to be asking. I simply asked for clarification of his post.

[jkhonea]

Are you saying that there is any chance in hell it would work?


Let me explain my post: I asked a question, no where in that question did I imply anything as to the chances of success for what I believed the poster to be asking. I simply asked for clarification of his post.

I'll answer. Yes I do think there's a chance in hell it would work. I think it would be incredible complex and messy as I have more than a fleeting thought that the military would fracture between soldiers following the government and those fed up that would fight against it. Make no mistake, I would NOT discount something like this happening nor would I guarantee the results by a long shot. If you think the Fed's would quickly and effectively win and shut down something like this, I believe you would be wrong.

[wallypiper]

The thing about armed conflict is that the federal government would have to take the first shot. All the states have to do is quit submitting to federal interference (which means losing federal money, of course) and go about their business. That would force the federal government to act and, well, that would be a very frightening and remarkable situation. Would Obama, or any other president send armed US troops to, say, Arizona to take control of the state? Texas? I don't think so. I think the government would back down and accept that they can't mandate a change to the law that 2/3 of the states oppose.

[TarzanMan]

Then your insight is lacking (severely). The states get a lot more money back from the federal government than they get in taxes from their own citizens.

The money that the people pay in Fed income taxes belongs to the Federal government. If a state did try to seize it or hold it then the state would have 10x the headaches the Federal government would. It would be relatively easy for the Federal gov to freeze the bank assets/accounts of a state government which that state put in any bank that operated across state lines. Do not forget that it is CONGRESS who has the power to collect taxes and it is CONGRESS who has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This spells big trouble for anyone who doesn't want to play nice.

Unfortunately for the roque state, its power & influence ends at its border and it would probably quickly find out that its citizens and businesses would reap little benefit from a few extra tax dollars vs their inability to do business outside of the state with their neighbors.

A Texas, California, or other state with a huge economy that shared a border with a foreign country (or ocean) probably could manage... but everyone else would quickly be up a creek.

-EDIT-
Don't forget that plenty of states (esp the South) has had a history of thumbing their noses at decisions or rulings issued by the Federal govt. It doesn't usually go well. In the bad cases you have national guardsmen enforcing the federal law within your borders... in the most extreme cases you lose the war, your legislative influence and end up having to petition the Federal government to please let you back in the clubhouse (see Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States))

[Karl Hungus]

Are you saying that people should lead an armed insurrection against the Federal Government?

No. First Neal Boortz should have people join an online armed insurrection first. I want to watch my avatar fight either for or against the Georgia National Guard for a while first. :lol:

[impalanar]

Then your insight is lacking (severely). The states get a lot more money back from the federal government than they get in taxes from their own citizens.

The money that the people pay in Fed income taxes belongs to the Federal government. If a state did try to seize it or hold it then the state would have 10x the headaches the Federal government would. It would be relatively easy for the Federal gov to freeze the bank assets/accounts of a state government which that state put in any bank that operated across state lines. Do not forget that it is CONGRESS who has the power to collect taxes and it is CONGRESS who has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This spells big trouble for anyone who doesn't want to play nice.

Unfortunately for the roque state, its power & influence ends at its border and it would probably quickly find out that its citizens and businesses would reap little benefit from a few extra tax dollars vs their inability to do business outside of the state with their neighbors.

A Texas, California, or other state with a huge economy that shared a border with a foreign country (or ocean) probably could manage... but everyone else would quickly be up a creek.

-EDIT-
Don't forget that plenty of states (esp the South) has had a history of thumbing their noses at decisions or rulings issued by the Federal govt. It doesn't usually go well. In the bad cases you have national guardsmen enforcing the federal law within your borders... in the most extreme cases you lose the war, your legislative influence and end up having to petition the Federal government to please let you back in the clubhouse (see Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States))

You are probably right until you get to your edit. A war of succession today would probably play out a little different than it did in the 1860's. The US Military is stretched pretty thin and I am not sure the soldiers would be willing participate in such a war on current US soil. You are also referring to decisions that while monumental, amounted to a lot of grandstanding by the south with no intentions of actually doing anything when the bluff is called. As far as pretty please let you back in, all but one southern state had been readmitted to the union before the party that had succeeded was back in power. (see Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States))

[jkhonea]

And please remember, this wouldn't play out the same as the Civil War. It wouldn't be as much states against states (the North versus the South), which it essentially was. It would be the nation against the Federal government as a whole. Different scope and different scenario. I really wouldn't discount or overly simplify this situation. There is getting to be a lot of people talking very seriously about these issues. Much moreso than I can recall in the past. Ignoring it would be a huge mistake of monumental proportions.

[Dan43]

I do not advocate armed resistance to the Federal government. I have an all to realistic idea of the consequneces of that course of action reguardless of which side comes out on top.

I do believe that the day is coming when armed resistance will be the only option the Federal government leaves the people of this nation.

[jkhonea]

I do not advocate armed resistance to the Federal government. I have an all to realistic idea of the consequneces of that course of action reguardless of which side comes out on top.

I do believe that the day is coming when armed resistance will be the only option the Federal government leaves the people of this nation.

That's what I'm saying. Exactly what I had meant when I said if the situation came up, it would be terrible. I know I've talked with people all over the country literally, and the number of people that mentioned this was scary. And I wasn't the one that brought the subject up.

[TarzanMan]

I do believe that the day is coming when armed resistance will be the only option the Federal government leaves the people of this nation.

Because people's lives here are so hard? Give me a f***ing break. Governments come and go (read your history), but people in this country have it GOOD. There is a long, long way to go before the quality of life of the average person in the USA gets bad enough to where you have to worry about revolution.

Most people can't even be bothered to vote in a non-presidential or local election. I don't think a revolution is anywhere close to being on the horizon.

[Dan43]

Because people's lives here are so hard? Give me a f***ing break. Governments come and go (read your history), but people in this country have it GOOD. There is a long, long way to go before the quality of life of the average person in the USA gets bad enough to where you have to worry about revolution.

Most people can't even be bothered to vote in a non-presidential or local election. I don't think a revolution is anywhere close to being on the horizon.We have it good today. But how good are we going to have it when the government finally loads the nation down with so much debt that we can't service it? Or when people who paid into SS their whole lives are told that their is no money to pay them the benefits they were counting on? Just because we are in good shape compared to most of the rest of the worlds population does not mean that we are going to stay that way in the future.