Update on Civil War II
Feb 13, 2009
There is nothing like money (or lack of it) to motivate people. Some months ago a Russian commentator claimed that America was soon going to split into six parts. I think his idea was far-fetched, because he thinks that each part would essentially be annexed or dominated by foreign nations. If a split should occur, it will be because the states in question want their own sovereignty and object to being enslaved by Washington D.C., not because they want to join with China, Mexico, or some other foreign nation.
The article below says that as of Feb. 6 there were eight states that had declared sovereignty, with another 20 making moves in that direction.
With the current spending spree going on in the name of bailouts and economic stimulus, this appears to be part of the impetus behind this move toward Civil War II. My question is, Why Now? After years of government power grabs, why is this just now becoming an issue? Does someone in the federal government want a civil war in order to have an excuse to declare martial law and grab total power?
Even so, the issues are very real. The states are running large deficits. California is near bankrupt. Minnesota, where I live, is $7 billion in the red this year. When states go bankrupt, the state legislatures tend to panic or embark upon austerity measures that only serve to make the people angry.
I suspect that State bankruptcies are going to become a very serious problem in about a year.
Some are saying that the drop in oil prices are reducing state revenues via the gasoline tax. This is based on the erroneous idea that gasoline taxes are calculated as a percentage of sales. In fact, gasoline taxes are based upon the number of GALLONS sold, not upon the price that people pay for gasoline.
For example, Minnesota's gasoline tax is 40.4 cents per gallon. California's is about 63 cents. It seems to me that the drop in gasoline prices will increase the amount sold, and thereby increase the tax revenues--not decrease them. So unless I am missing something, I don't see that this will be a contributing factor in State monetary woes.
Even so, the states are hurting for money, and the most recent "stimulus package" being passed sends only a small amount of money to the states--not enough to really help.
Speaking of the "stimulus package," it is obvious that it will not have much positive impact upon the real economic problems in America. Very little of it addresses the real problem, which is the stated reason why Obama's pick for Commerce Secretary dropped out of the running.
So far, only Congressman Ron Paul of Texas appears to be advocating anything close to the real solution to the problem. He is the only one advocating the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank and the establishment of a true National Bank that issues real money. As long as our representatives refuse to make that change, we will continue to spiral downward into the "catastrophe" that people have been talking about.
Yet this must also be accompanied by a Jubilee declaration, rather than by allowing a Jubilee by default. If nothing is done, the currency will soon enter a hyperinflationary stage, and people will pay off their debts in cheap money by the barrel full. Perhaps that is what someone up there has in mind, thinking that they can just start over with a new kind of currency that is still based upon a debt-money system.