Posted on 10/11/2009 3:28:57 PM PDT by combat_boots
I'm going to go back to this quote by Barney Frank of the US House, because it says everything those in state and local governments need to know:
Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.
“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”
Got it? It's a policy to screw the state and local governments.
Huh, you say? It's simple, really: State and local governments rely on property tax revenues. Yet defaulted mortgages don't pay property taxes. Yes, there's a lien on the property but this doesn't help the municipal budget now.
And suffer they are:
Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.denninger.net ...
The cities are pathetically full of people seeking their Obama Money.
Oceans are nice.
Those three states, plus Alaska and Pennsylvania, probably account for 95-98% of the oil and natural gas that is produced in the USSA.
I’ll vote for that!
Not if we name it a death penalty crime of treason to even attempt to undermine our constitution... Think Hondorus.
YES!
I think you are right. Lincoln and the first REPUBLICAN administration certainly shifted the balance of power away from the States and towards the Federal government. It could be argued (and indeed was) that secession was “legal”, because the constitution did not specifically say that the Union was binding on the States. It does now of course. Any possibility of the loophole was removed following Union victory in the civil war.
Anyone who even talks about this are TRAITORS to the United States. It was treason in 1861, it is treason now. You would be handing North America over to the Communists by breaking up this country. We are NOT the USSR. You want to break up our country just because you don’t like things that are happening at the moment? How long do you think you will totally agree with everything your “new” country does? My father fought to preserve this country’s freedom in WWII. My forefathers fought to establish this country in 1776 and to preserve it in 1861. I’ll be damned if someone will split it apart now. If you want to try to destroy my country in 2009 you’ll be facing MY second amendment rights.
Simply an opening gambit towards that goal, imo, would shake up the progressives to a point they would be peeing in their pants.
As appealing as that sounds, its just not realistic going forward from that point.
Peaceful separation is our goal, at least initially... We WONT initiate the violence, but we WILL defend our own and guard our freedom and liberty. If that means we have to start lining up the bodies of dead liberal aggressors along the boarder for their families to come claim then thats the cost THEY were willing to pay to try and keep the chains on us.
Texas has the population of “conservatives” to make this happen without the need to import folks.
Honestly, what I know about Texans... The just need to make up their minds that its the only option left, and they will do it.
I was shocked to see Karl broaching this subject.
Massachusetts was the cradle of the Revolution. Somewhere along the line, you all forgot what that was all about. It is time to jolt your memories!
Wake up.....America is already in the hands of the enemy.
It was treason in 1776 as well...
Im ok with that.
Im also ok with being on the opposite side as you if that is what you really want.
Where does it forbid it?
Without federal funding and free money, the democrat politicians have nothing. They tax one group and give that money to another. That's all they do. Without the ability to do that, what else would they do? They'd have no purpose.
The Supreme Court did rule on secession. In an 1869 decision the court ruled that states could leave the Union with the consent of the other states. So Red states and Blue states need to sit down, divy up responsibility for the debt and other obligation, split the federal property, come to an agreement, and the Red states can wander off into the sunset. Easy as that.
Where does it forbid it?
WOW N-S .... Are you a lawyer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.