MjM
Deity
But about 10 people live in the Midwest!
Should the Confederacy rise again?
- Thread starter Bozo Erectus
- Start date
But about 10 people live in the Midwest!
Xanikk999
History junkie
Productive in what specifically?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
$$$$$$$$$$
Xanikk999
History junkie
If you mean Oil then wouldnt alaska be on that list also? And im not sure floridas a big oil state...
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Basically tourism(beaches, Disney), space and aeronautical stuff (Kennedy Space Center), citrus(oranges, oranges, and more oranges), and it helps that everyone from the other 49 states wants to live here.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
No, but I would like to see a smaller federal government, and more responsibility delegated to the states.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Well first, he said two of the biggest and most productive states, not the two, so I don't see what you're getting your panties in a bunch over.
And who said a thing about oil? There's more in Texas than oil. But for the record, FL is on the Gulf, too, and there's plenty of oil in the Gulf, so yes, oil is important to the Floridian economy.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
It really depends what y'all think is better. The States becoming more powerful would be a good thing, although a national Confederacy for defence would be important. Independence movements within States may not be a bad thing, as long as they continue banding together. However, to have a United States of America and a Confederate States of America would be daft at this point in time.
To those saying state taxes would rise in the South, of course they would. There would be no Federal taxes, though, if Southern (or any) States declared independence. This would present a couple of messy situations regarding entitlements. Current Southerners would be entitled to receive benefits from the USA if they remained part of the country, and to become independent would be to refuse current and future Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. checks. Short-term, this would cause an ugly situation. However, long-term, as the USA spirals deeper and deeper into debt, it would be to a State's advantage (specifically, to the advantage of the citizens my age) to secede. No benefits, but also no debt twenty or thirty years from now.
World situation: it would cripple the USA for half of the country to secede. No more international excursions, unless the USA and newly-formed CSA had a joint military. Iraq and the Middle East deteriorate and the world oil market becomes less certain than it is now. The Korean peninsula deteriorates, as US forces no longer have a presence in the Republic of Korea staring the "DPR"K in the face. China has a carte blanche over basically the rest of the world. The USA maintains superpower status based on its nuclear arsenal, partisan hacks revel on both sides of victory over the other Party, and the new boss is the same as the old boss in a few years.
Bottom line: I'm opposed as I would immediately become a foreign national.
To those saying state taxes would rise in the South, of course they would. There would be no Federal taxes, though, if Southern (or any) States declared independence. This would present a couple of messy situations regarding entitlements. Current Southerners would be entitled to receive benefits from the USA if they remained part of the country, and to become independent would be to refuse current and future Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. checks. Short-term, this would cause an ugly situation. However, long-term, as the USA spirals deeper and deeper into debt, it would be to a State's advantage (specifically, to the advantage of the citizens my age) to secede. No benefits, but also no debt twenty or thirty years from now.
World situation: it would cripple the USA for half of the country to secede. No more international excursions, unless the USA and newly-formed CSA had a joint military. Iraq and the Middle East deteriorate and the world oil market becomes less certain than it is now. The Korean peninsula deteriorates, as US forces no longer have a presence in the Republic of Korea staring the "DPR"K in the face. China has a carte blanche over basically the rest of the world. The USA maintains superpower status based on its nuclear arsenal, partisan hacks revel on both sides of victory over the other Party, and the new boss is the same as the old boss in a few years.
Bottom line: I'm opposed as I would immediately become a foreign national.
That raises a question - what would be the net revenue change in the US as a result of the secession?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
About the South getting all the oil refineries and much of the oil industry. No problem. In the short term they'll need all the help they can get. It would be a great opportunity to jumpstart the alternative fuel industries in the North and kick the oil habit. Freed from the anchor which is the South, the Union would catapult into the 21st century.
(looking at stopwatch to see how long it takes someone to say 'yeah, catapulting into the 21st century, and landing on their Northern ass')
(looking at stopwatch to see how long it takes someone to say 'yeah, catapulting into the 21st century, and landing on their Northern ass')
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Less than five minutes, depending on how long it takes me to type...
But seriously, the USA's oil habit is something that its presidents have been trying (albeit halfheartedly) since the 1970's to kick, but it isn't happening. And if the USA decides to start making a huge push for ethanol, it'll just be digging itself into a bigger hole. But hey, whatever will buy Iowa's votes.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Not really. Theyve been halheartedly talking about it, thats about it. Carter tried to set the country on the right path as far as energy is concerned, but its one of the things he was demonized for, and Reagan undid all of his work as quickly as possible. Its only now that a consensus is emerging that we need to get off of oil, for a whole host of reasons. Having to buy most of our refined oil products from the South would be just one more reason, and the new (relatively) uber liberal Union wouldnt be dragging its feet on the issue the way the US has been.
Less than five minutes, depending on how long it takes me to type...
But seriously, the USA's oil habit is something that its presidents have been trying (albeit halfheartedly) since the 1970's to kick, but it isn't happening.
Ethanol has a role to play, but its not a question of either oil or ethanol. The post oil world will be a mix of fuels.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Carter? Doing good for our energy future? Maybe for fossil fuels, but certainly not for nuclear, which is currently the best alternative to it. If the USA were allowed to reprocess its nuclear fuel, we wouldn't need Yucca Mountain and we could produce more fuel than we spend when running reactors. Instead, we're running a wasteful nuclear program (it's highly efficient and cheap, but it could be much better) and throwing used fuel outside of power plants. Not a pretty picture.
And I doubt that losing the CSA would have much of an effect on getting the USA off oil, considering Big Oil would still wield considerable influence over Wall Street and Washington.
Further baseless hypotheses on my part depends on knowing how amicable the split between the CSA and USA was.
Of course it will be a mix of fuels, but the USA is currently having a very public infatuation with Aunt Ethanol, which will only break Uncle Sam's heart. Assuming the states which secede in 1861 form the CSA while the rest remain USA, the Corn Belt will hold more influence in the government and make ethanol more popular than it currently is.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Well I dont want to turn this into an energy thread, but as you know, Im not a big fan of nuclear power, and as Bozo Lincoln, President of the Union, I wouldnt back it
Wall Street is Wall Street, that'll never change, but after the split big oil would have much more influence in Richmond than in Washington, thank God.
Mutually agreed upon and peaceful.
Youre probably right about that, and in the short term, increasing ethanol use wouldnt be so terrible. Bottom line, both new nations would be confronted with unique challenges that theyd be forced to deal with, and average people on both sides of the new border would benefit from that.
Like what? Quit subsidizing whiners who hate them?
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
More on Southern oil. If the South seceded, the North would continue buying oil from the South. There would be no change, why would they stop since it is so cheap? Also, remember where most of the oil in the world comes from. I don't think anyone would mind buying oil from the southern states.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
I wouldnt mind at all. If it got too expensive, we could always build our own refineries. Since theoretically it would be a completely amicable seperation, Id fully expect to have strong diplomatic ties with the Confederate States, and mutually beneficial trade agreements. All we'd be doing is seperating because even though we might love each other, we just cant live together anymore.
