On 11/13/2012 1:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
Gramp's shop wrote:

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the
country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce,
92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you
can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90
percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal,
all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven

That's cool.

On the other hand, Texas controls 70% of the nation's refining capacity.

25%, actually. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_..._8pa_BSD_a.htm


That's enough to run Texas ok, and maybe a bit left over for
foreign aid...

Richard writes:
On 11/13/2012 1:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
Gramp's shop wrote:

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the
country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce,
92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you
can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90
percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal,
all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven

That's cool.

On the other hand, Texas controls 70% of the nation's refining capacity.

25%, actually. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_..._8pa_BSD_a.htm


That's enough to run Texas ok, and maybe a bit left over for
foreign aid...

Until one realizes that something like 70% of the federal income
taxes paid by texans are funnelled back into the state; which means
that even _if_ texas were to succeed at secession, they'd have to impose
high state taxes to cover the shortfall.

Not to mention that the border gets 400% longer and would cost a great
deal more to secure.

On 11/13/2012 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On 11/13/2012 1:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
Gramp's shop wrote:

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the
country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce,
92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you
can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90
percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal,
all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven

That's cool.

On the other hand, Texas controls 70% of the nation's refining capacity.

25%, actually. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_..._8pa_BSD_a.htm


That's enough to run Texas ok, and maybe a bit left over for
foreign aid...


Until one realizes that something like 70% of the federal income
taxes paid by texans are funnelled back into the state; which means
that even _if_ texas were to succeed at secession, they'd have to impose
high state taxes to cover the shortfall.


I think we are doing our math differently.
100% going out and 70% coming back?

I think we'd do ok.

And no "income" tax. (sacrilege!)



Not to mention that the border gets 400% longer and would cost a great
deal more to secure.

Not a problem.
Get the Feds out of the way and we can deal with the borders.


But it's just a pipe dream.

Richard wrote in
m:

On 11/13/2012 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On 11/13/2012 1:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
Gramp's shop wrote:

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of
the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and
lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's
quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90%
of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the
US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors,
all the Ivy and Seven

That's cool.

On the other hand, Texas controls 70% of the nation's refining
capacity.

25%, actually.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_..._8pa_BSD_a.htm

That's enough to run Texas ok, and maybe a bit left over for
foreign aid...

Until one realizes that something like 70% of the federal income
taxes paid by texans are funnelled back into the state; which means
that even _if_ texas were to succeed at secession, they'd have to
impose high state taxes to cover the shortfall.

I think we are doing our math differently.
100% going out and 70% coming back?

I think we'd do ok.

And no "income" tax. (sacrilege!)

Not to mention that the border gets 400% longer and would cost a
great deal more to secure.

Not a problem.
Get the Feds out of the way and we can deal with the borders.

But it's just a pipe dream.

I think that Scott meant that of the Federal taxes paid by Texas, 70%
goes back to them (I didn't check the figures). That means that Texas
would save some of the money paid to the feds, but not really that much.
They would have to raise that 70% for themselves, plus they would have to
find a way to pay their own military, diplomats, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Nov 2012 12:57:54 GMT, Han wrote:
They would have to raise that 70% for themselves, plus they would have to
find a way to pay their own military, diplomats, etc.

Well, considering the amount of armament that regular Texans
supposedly have in their homes, their military wouldn't need to budget
much to get them armed.

Dave wrote in
:

On 14 Nov 2012 12:57:54 GMT, Han wrote:
They would have to raise that 70% for themselves, plus they would have
to find a way to pay their own military, diplomats, etc.

Well, considering the amount of armament that regular Texans
supposedly have in their homes, their military wouldn't need to budget
much to get them armed.

How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston from
air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe common
criminal here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11/15/2012 7:20 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 14 Nov 2012 12:57:54 GMT, wrote:
They would have to raise that 70% for themselves, plus they would have
to find a way to pay their own military, diplomats, etc.

Well, considering the amount of armament that regular Texans
supposedly have in their homes, their military wouldn't need to budget
much to get them armed.

How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston from
air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe common
criminal here.


A few F-16s for General Dynamics, Fort Worth.

On 11/15/2012 7:45 AM, Richard wrote:
On 11/15/2012 7:20 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in

How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston
from
air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe common
criminal here.


A few F-16s for General Dynamics, Fort Worth.


One Texas Ranger?g

On 15 Nov 2012 13:20:37 GMT, Han wrote:
How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston from
air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe common
criminal here.

It was another joke Han. You're feeling a little slow lately aren't
you?

Dave wrote in
:

On 15 Nov 2012 13:20:37 GMT, Han wrote:
How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston
from air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe
common criminal here.

It was another joke Han. You're feeling a little slow lately aren't
you?

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11/15/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).

+1

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole
secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).
----------------------------------------------------
From what I here, there about 750,000 people chasing this "Thing".

Let's see there around 310,000,000 people in the USA.

750,000/310,000,000 = 0.024% of the population.

Yawn.

Time for a nap.

Lew

On 11/15/2012 12:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole
secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).
----------------------------------------------------
From what I here, there about 750,000 people chasing this "Thing".

Let's see there around 310,000,000 people in the USA.

750,000/310,000,000 = 0.024% of the population.

Yawn.

Time for a nap.

Lew






How many politicians did it tale to spend $13,000,000,000,000.00

On 11/15/2012 1:59 PM, Leon wrote:
On 11/15/2012 12:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole
secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).
----------------------------------------------------
From what I here, there about 750,000 people chasing this "Thing".

Let's see there around 310,000,000 people in the USA.

750,000/310,000,000 = 0.024% of the population.

Yawn.

Time for a nap.

Lew






How many politicians did it tale to spend $13,000,000,000,000.00
I think it took one to increase the debt from about 10 trillion to 16
trillion in 4 years. At a trillion /year that is going to b over 20
trillion of debt that will have to be resolved. The social democrats
will probably propose some sort of dollar reevaluation.

Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole
secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).
----------------------------------------------------

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

From what I here, there about 750,000 people chasing this "Thing".

Let's see there around 310,000,000 people in the USA.

750,000/310,000,000 = 0.024% of the population.

Yawn.

Time for a nap.

Lew
---------------------------------------------
OPPS

Should read 0.24%

Still time to take a nap.

Lew

On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Han wrote:

Well, this time I joked back at the poster grin. This whole
secession
idea is total crap. (Not a joke).
----------------------------------------------------
From what I here, there about 750,000 people chasing this "Thing".

Let's see there around 310,000,000 people in the USA.

750,000/310,000,000 = 0.024% of the population.

Yawn.

Time for a nap.

Lew




You know, Lew, there are a lot of us who feel the same way whenever we
see your "rising creek" thread...

In article , Han
wrote:

Dave wrote in
:

On 14 Nov 2012 12:57:54 GMT, Han wrote:
They would have to raise that 70% for themselves, plus they would have
to find a way to pay their own military, diplomats, etc.

Well, considering the amount of armament that regular Texans
supposedly have in their homes, their military wouldn't need to budget
much to get them armed.

How many "regular Texans" to defend the refineries etc around Houston from
air attack? I am just saying, we aren't only concerned with Joe common
criminal here.

"It's a trap! There are TWO of them!"

--
I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I
like fishing because it¹s the one thing I can think of that probably doesn¹t. *
John Gierach