If a state withdraws from the republic ....

Does that state get to avoid being stuck for any of the national debt?

I asked a banker this que last night and he almost spilled his whiskey.

lol.. you certainly know how to make people spill their stuff. lol

Does that state get to avoid being stuck for any of the national debt?

I asked a banker this que last night and he almost spilled his whiskey. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Any state that attempts to withdraw must assume ALL of the national debt.

K - what you wish for is not necessarily so.


The Civil War ( 1861-1865 for DPST/CCP)settled the question of secession from teh union.

It does not happen - and anyone who believes that secession of a state is possible - is mis-informed -

Texas could divide itself into up to 5 states - but not secede.

Socialist States like NY and kalifornia run humongous debt due to their DPST mis-management - and expect other states to take up their debt for them

it won't happen - properly managed states will refuse to pay for teh profligate, Socialsit numbskulls in the West coast and Ny.

let them fix their own debt problem with New Management.

K - what you wish for is not necessarily so.

The Civil War ( 1861-1865 for DPST/CCP)settled the question of secession from teh union.

It does not happen - and anyone who believes that secession of a state is possible - is mis-informed -

Texas could divide itself into up to 5 states - but not secede.

Socialist States like NY and kalifornia run humongous debt due to their DPST mis-management - and expect other states to take up their debt for them

it won't happen - properly managed states will refuse to pay for teh profligate, Socialsit numbskulls in the West coast and Ny.

let them fix their own debt problem with New Management. Originally Posted by oeb11

I don't think you get what the OP was driving at. he actually was talking about secession, I'm just having fun with him. I'd gladly let CA secede if they have to pay all $28T of our debt. LOL

But back to the question of who pays for the national debt and state debt. The well managed states cannot stop the federal government from raising corporate and personal income taxes on citizens and then sending the money to NY and CA to pay off their state debts. States don't pay each other's debts - the citizens do through federal taxes.

But the situation described is referred to as "moral hazard". A person or entity gets to borrow money that somebody else must pay back. It encourages reckless risk. This happened on Wall Street too many times to count. The banks made bad loans and the federal government covered it when the economy collapsed. So the banks privatized the profits, but socialized the risks (or losses).

The same thing can happen with bailing out states. NY and CA have made absolutely terrible contracts with their public employees. They avoided strikes in the past by promising ridiculous retirement benefits to teachers, cops, fireman, bureaucrats, etc. Now they cannot pay their benefits and want the federal government to raise taxes on people in other states to pay for their profligacy.

But if that is successful, then all of the other states will begin making ridiculous promises to their state employees (in return for campaign support). Then THOSE states will want bailouts 10 years down the road.

It's a vicious cycle. It must be avoided by refusing to bail out states from their debt obligations.

Thank you - k - well written good point!

Or those states like Cali, NY, NJ, MA, IL, WA and CT can stop funding just about every other state. They get back about 60 cents on the dollar of money sent to the federal govt whereas basically all the red states except NE and a Dakota receive more than a $1 for every $1 they pay in.

Without those states and their tax money l, nearly every other state in the union would go broke. States like MS, AL and SC would be bankrupt 2-3x over.

Thank you - k - well written good point! Originally Posted by oeb11

Yes, and he totally ruined my pending punchline.

Yes the public trough is the issue.

More appropriate is that all local expenditures be funded locally.
All state expenditures by funded by states.
Thus, Feds should not be sending any funds whatsoever to state or local.
So... get rid of all fed grants, entitlements, everything, etc. And fed just taxes enough for military and federal operations.

Yeah a dream and good luck with that but....

i would vote for that proposal - UC.

Unfortunately - we have a Congress dedicated to tax and spend.



and - if the populous states referred to above (#7) - and generally are DPST/CCP dominated - cannot get A DPST/CCP Congress to give them more money - the onus is on the DPST/CCP party.



of course - there is the concept of spending within One's means - and both parties on teh federal level have ignored that concept - and it is about to ignored to the cost of 10's of Trillions of $ with Biden's profligate spending.

biden knows he won't be around to see the consequences of his/harris spending proposals.

Do any of you secessionist even know the top ten state's that recieve more from the Federal Government than they pay in?

Would you think they are blue or red states?

Or those states like Cali, NY, NJ, MA, IL, WA and CT can stop funding just about every other state. They get back about 60 cents on the dollar of money sent to the federal govt whereas basically all the red states except NE and a Dakota receive more than a $1 for every $1 they pay in.

Without those states and their tax money l, nearly every other state in the union would go broke. States like MS, AL and SC would be bankrupt 2-3x over. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Wrong on SO many levels.

First and foremost - states do NOT pay money to the federal government. Only citizens in those states do. If NY residents pay a lot in federal income taxes, it is because NY has a lot of billionaires and megamillionaires. Those same federal tax dollars, however, also pay to prop up NYers living in Schenectady and Buffalo.

BTW, I'm pretty certain the red states of TX and FL pay their own way. You left them out.

Also, check your numbers on IL. That state is broke and on the edge of bankruptcy. I'm pretty sure they are not paying more to the federal government than they are getting. Chicago is not enough to float the state. Chicago cannot even cover its own nut.

The poor folks in Alabama do not get any more federal support than the poor people in Oakland.

Funding disparities tend to be tied to military bases and agricultural supports, without which blue states would starve. Also, we all benefit from interstate highways. CA and NY don't pay for interstates in NV and CO out of the goodness of their hearts. That highway funding benefits them even if it spent in Colorado.

There is an uneven distribution of billionaires and multimillionaires. They are concentrated in large coastal cities. If your state happens to have a city like that, then you are fortunate, but it has nothing to do with the wisdom of a blue state government.

A lot of highly successful states started out as Republican, then slowly turned Democratic once they became prosperous, and are now deeply in debt. CA used to be a GOP state that everyone moved to. Now look.

GA has been red for decades and has been booming. But it may be turning blue. How long do you think the prosperity will last once progressives start voting for high taxes, public sector unions, and defunding the cops? The same goes with Texas.

The truth is that there are no red states and blue states. There are blue cities surrounded by red suburbs and red rural areas. Take a look at the election maps. Even CA is mostly red.

If your state has a high percentage of people living in a big city, then your citizens will probably pay higher income taxes to the federal government simply because of demographics. But that is mostly an accident of history, not government planning. NYC and Boston were big cities even before there was a United States. Because they had good harbors, not because of government.

Also, I thought it was a tenet of progressivism that the rich are supposed to pay more to support the poor. When you see rich states paying their "fair share", why are you offended by that?

And my favorite indication of how precarious things are in blues states is this: In CT, they had to appoint someone to monitor a group of about 20-30 super rich Wall Street types living in and around Greenwich. The problem was that if any one of them moved out, the tax loss would have a noticeable impact on the state budget. Wrap your head around that. How is it possible that a state could be that dependent on a small clique of moguls. And they didn't even make their money in CT. They made it on Wall Street in NYC and commuted home to Greenwich.

Thank you K - unfortunately - Facts and Truth do not enter into DPST/CCP comprehension.

The federal government has to pay the Nation debt with the federal reserve issue and is bigger holder of the debt. Since it federal government responsible to pay back debt. There general tax the people who have there land control. But when print money which is use 2/3 of world people it tax on the money holders. Would people buy bonds from a war torn withdrawal state. Maybe but no.

lol.. you certainly know how to make people spill their stuff. lol Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yip, That Unique guy sure has some funny stuff.

I don't think you get what the OP was driving at. he actually was talking about secession, I'm just having fun with him. I'd gladly let CA secede if they have to pay all $28T of our debt. LOL

.... Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

you are a funny guy. Very good comments. oeb11 seems to be way too serious about the matter.

Things have gone to far since the civil war for states to seriously think about secession.