With all the politcal problems brewing, would Oklahoma and Texas be better off forming their own Country? Below are some criteria to consider and I even compiled a few on the number myself but I don't have ready access to most of the data. What are your thoughts? How would the new country compare to the rest of the world

Criteria -

Area:
338,504 sq miles. Would 64th largest country. Would be between Congo and Finland and not much smaller than Germany. Notable countries that are smaller: Norway, Poland, Italy, United Kingdom, South Korea.

Population:
27,600,000. 46th most populace country in the world. Would be between Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. Notable countries with fewer people: Belgium. Portugal, Sweden, Czech Republic, Taiwan, Australia

GDP:
$1.4 trillion. 13th highest in the world. Would be between Mexico and South Korea. Notable countries with a smaller GDP: Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Singapore, Norway.

Energy Production:
Oil
Electric (all sources including coal, nuclear, hydo, wind)
Natural gas
Gasoline Production

Food Production:
Cattle
Pigs
Chickens
Wheat
Corn
Soybean
Cotton

Largest Cities (Metro):
1. Dallas
2. Houston
3. San Antonia
4. Austin
5. Oklahoma City
6. Tulsa
7. El Paso
8. McAllen
9. Corpus Christi
10. Brownsville

Largest Companies:
50 Fortune 500 companies (data looks old)
Devon Energy
KMG Kerr-McGee
OGE OGE Energy
Williams Companies, Inc.
AdvancePCS
Affiliated Computer Services
American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum
Baker Hughes
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Burlington Resources
Center Point Energy
Centex
Clear Channel Communications
ConocoPhillips
Continental Airlines
Cooper Industries
D.R. Horton
Dean Foods
Dell Computer
Dynegy
El Paso Corp.
Electronic Data Systems
Encompass Services
Enterprise Products
Exxon Mobil
Fleming
Group 1 Automotive
Halliburton
J.C. Penney
Kimberly-Clark
Lennox International
Lyondell Chemical
Marathon Oil
Neiman Marcus
Plains All American Pipelin
RadioShack
Reliant Energy
SBC Communications
Smith International
Southwest Airlines
Sysco
Temple-Inland
Tesoro Petroleum
Texas Instruments
Triad Hospitals
TXU
USAA
Valero Energy
Waste Management

Transportation:
Miles of Interstate quality freeway
Rail Network
HSR possibilities
Waterways/Ports
Airports

Politcal divisions:
Federal Capitol - Ft Worth Area
Doing away with Oklahoma and Texas state border and creat new borders.
9 States - Western Oklahoma, Eastern Oklahoma, Texas/Oklahoma Panhandle, West Texes, North Texas, East Texas, South Texas, North East Texas/SE Oklahoma, Central Texas.

Since Oklahoma receives more federal money than it sends to the feds, the answer is plainly "no."

Since Oklahoma receives more federal money than it sends to the feds, the answer is plainly "no."

There you go again - equating more taxes with 'better'. I'll give you this, if you are pro big-government, then your right, it wouldn't be better for you. BTW - we'll see how much that money keeps flowing into Oklahoma now that people in D.C. are figuring out we are out of money.

And we could call our country North Mexico...

And we could call our country North Mexico...

A name would be a different matter but why do you associate it with Mexico? Is that in reference to illegal Mexican population of Texas or the US citizens with Mexican ancestors? Or were you just trying to be funny?

Since Oklahoma receives more federal money than it sends to the feds, the answer is plainly "no."

Excatly. All of the anti-government types around here would probably reconsider at the loss of Tinker, the FAA, or all of the juicy federal funds for OUHSC, OMRF, etc. The loss of Tinker alone would wipe out about 25% of this area's economy.

And therein lies the problem. Everyone loves to howl about the deficit, wasteful spending, etc. unless it benefits them. Its easy to spot stuff that needs to be cut, but suddenly everyone gets offended when their golden goose is threatened. That's why we're in the situation we are now.

But to answer the hypothetical (assuming we could get around the legality of this issue), no we would not be better off. Many of those companies you listed operate nationwide. What benefit would it be to them to work internationally (if they aren't arlready doing it)? How are those companies going to lure people here to work? After all, they would technically be immigrants. What about having to deal with all of the new tarrifs? Or border crossings? What about people living in Texarkana, Texas? Lots of OK and TX's state funds are supplemented by the feds. How are you going to replace that money? There's a reason that Europe has tried to unify things more to cut down on all of the BS that happens between independent nations. Running a country is hard. Texas already tried it and they barely lasted 3 years.

The truth is I don't think folks in these parts are as ruggedly independent as they would like to think. Most seccession talk is blabber used to rile up a political base (see: Rick Perry)

I am assuming this new country would have a military. Most of the world spends very little on their military and they seem to get by. If having a large military is the solution to economic growth, why is the US in a crappy position with many people blaming the bloated Defense Budget was one of the primary problems?

A lot of the companies listed already operate internationally but if this new county offer low, or no, corporate taxes companies would flock here. Instead of moving to the Caymans, Guam, Dubai, Singapore, and Hong Kong - they would come here. No income tax, no corporate taxes, and a one-rate national retail sales tax.

Texas would rather split off without Oklahoma. Except for OU football, Oklahoma brings nothing to the table and would just drag down the new "country."

Granted it would be 90% Texas but Oklahoma does bring agriculture, energy, and shipping access to the Mississippi River system without going through New Orleans.

Since Oklahoma receives more federal money than it sends to the feds, the answer is plainly "no."

And nearly all that money comes with strings attached. If the new country raised their own revenue we could get rid of the strings and spend the money better.

There you go again - equating more taxes with 'better'But, Kerry, it's an extremely well proven fact that higher taxes have better outcomes for the people living and putting up with those higher taxes. For just one for instance, the people in the high tax states of New England are more likely to have all their teeth than people in Oklahoma.

Excatly. All of the anti-government types around here would probably reconsider at the loss of Tinker, the FAA, or all of the juicy federal funds for OUHSC, OMRF, etc. The loss of Tinker alone would wipe out about 25% of this area's economy.

And therein lies the problem. Everyone loves to howl about the deficit, wasteful spending, etc. unless it benefits them. Its easy to spot stuff that needs to be cut, but suddenly everyone gets offended when their golden goose is threatened. That's why we're in the situation we are now.

But to answer the hypothetical (assuming we could get around the legality of this issue), no we would not be better off. Many of those companies you listed operate nationwide. What benefit would it be to them to work internationally (if they aren't arlready doing it)? How are those companies going to lure people here to work? After all, they would technically be immigrants. What about having to deal with all of the new tarrifs? Or border crossings? What about people living in Texarkana, Texas? Lots of OK and TX's state funds are supplemented by the feds. How are you going to replace that money? There's a reason that Europe has tried to unify things more to cut down on all of the BS that happens between independent nations. Running a country is hard. Texas already tried it and they barely lasted 3 years.

The truth is I don't think folks in these parts are as ruggedly independent as they would like to think. Most seccession talk is blabber used to rile up a political base (see: Rick Perry)Oh, shut up. You spout off so much truth that it hurts.

But, Kerry, it's an extremely well proven fact that higher taxes have better outcomes for the people living and putting up with those higher taxes. For just one for instance, the people in the high tax states of New England are more likely to have all their teeth than people in Oklahoma.

And you think high taxes get the credit? But see, here is the beauty of the new country. Since it would be built on a states-rights platform if you choose to live in the state of "East Texas" you could raise local taxes all you want and all the money collected would be spent locally. You wouldn't have to worry about sending money to the 'Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle' state. Federal money would only go to fund the federal government who's power would be limited (Articles of Confederation style). About the only thing the Federal government would need to fund is a common military, interstate transportation (mostly highway and high speed rail), and border security.

But alas, you guys are focusing too much on government spending. How about all the other things that make a country great?

And you think high taxes get the credit? But see, here is the beauty of the new country. Since it would be built on a states-rights platform if you choose to live in the state of "East Texas" you could raise local taxes all you want and all the money collected would be spent locally. You wouldn't have to worry about sending money to the 'Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle' state. Federal money would only go to fund the federal government who's power would be limited (Articles of Confederation style). About the only thing the Federal government would need to fund is a common military, interstate transportation (mostly highway and high speed rail), and border security.

But alas, you guys are focusing too much on government spending. How about all the other things that make a country great?

Its not so much focusing on gov't spending, but it is important. If you were going to form your own country, meaning that you would be forcing people to cut their ties to friends and families in other states, then it would at least need to be financially prudent. I don't know how smart it would be to have a small military when you are sharing a border with an unstable basket case like Mexico. But assume you can for this purpose. The US federal budget is so bloated that even a scaled down military would probably only bring tax revenue in line with spending (remember that both OK and TX get a ton of money from medicare). So taxes would probably have to stay the same. It wouldn't be worth it for most people. Also, the form of government you are proposing would be a loose confederation style much like Canada. So what happens with the South Texas state makes Spanish the official language (much like Quebec did with french) or the East Texas state reinstates Jim Crow (because both areas could easliy vote and pass it)? And it will get ugly fast when the tribes in OK start pushing for sovereignty and demanding their land back. It is not easy trying to corral nearly 30 million people from the diverse walks of life you see in this region.

Why would people be forced to drop ties with family? And Jim Crow? Why would you repeat such a hateful stereotype? I grew up in East Texas and your comment is insulting and based on nothing but a personal need to feel superior, even if you have to make things up to do it. Pitiful.

Since it would be a new country we get to do a lot things differently. Official language - English. Put it in the Article of Confederation that all government business must be conducted in English, and only in English. Problem solved

Elections for federal office would have to follow federal laws. Local elections follow local laws I guess. Indian tribes wanting their land back? Too bad. Go take that up with the US government. Their deal was with them.

Since it would be a new country we get to do a lot things differently. Official language - English. Put it in the Article of Confederation that all government business must be conducted in English, and only in English. Problem solved

Elections for federal office would have to follow federal laws. Local elections follow local laws I guess. Indian tribes wanting their land back? Too bad. Go take that up with the US government. Their deal was with them.

So how do we take back the land from the Indians? War?

If we were our own country, our education rankings would put us on par with Croatia - yay, us!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/your-child-left-behind/8310/

If we were our own country, our education rankings would put us on par with Croatia - yay, us!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/your-child-left-behind/8310/

What is our ranking now?

So how do we take back the land from the Indians? War?

Why take it back, they own it. The question was what happens if some tribe wants back land owned by other people. They need to go take that up with the US Government.

Kerry,

I’m glad you’ve finally outed yourself as a treasonous radical. It’s been obvious for some time that the primary driver behind all of your politics is your hatred for America. Nice digs in Indians and illegal immigrants. Careful there or you might give show your cloak off too.

I think we can complete stop listening to his drivel now, can’t we?

There you go again - equating more taxes with 'better'.

No, more free money = better. Without federal matching funds, our medical and social services systems would collapse, including private medical. Not to mention the fact that thousands, maybe millions would literally be starving in the darkness.

You want a surefire revolution which ends up in communism or socialism or something like that? Your ideas, according to history, would pretty much guarantee that result.

Kerry,

I’m glad you’ve finally outed yourself as a treasonous radical. It’s been obvious for some time that the primary driver behind all of your politics is your hatred for America. Nice digs in Indians and illegal immigrants. Careful there or you might give show your cloak off too.

I think we can complete stop listening to his drivel now, can’t we?

LOL - if supporting the ideals of American exceptionalism is considered treasonous to the modern American government then so be it. Although, I thought I had been pretty clear on that for a while now. I guess maybe you are just slow.

No, more free money = better. Without federal matching funds, our medical and social services systems would collapse, including private medical. Not to mention the fact that thousands, maybe millions would literally be starving in the darkness.

You want a surefire revolution which ends up in communism or socialism or something like that? Your ideas, according to history, would pretty much guarantee that result.

Free money? Please explain what free money is. You really think all of society would collapse if the government stopped transfering wealth? Sounds like you should buy a gun and some gold. Care to subscribe to my newsletter?

For some reason I see only white people in Kerry's new world.

For some reason I see only white people in Kerry's new world.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he has friends at Elohim City. He's a Tim McVeigh type "patriot". He has advocated the violent overthrow of the government of United States in the past on this site and now is calling for secession of Oklahoma and Texas. Mostly from what I can tell because a black man is president. And in his new “country”, not only are taxes not allowed, but Mexicans and Indians had better get out too. He's not someone just to disagree with anymore, he's an enemy of America and a traitor to his country.

Free money? Please explain what free money is. You really think all of society would collapse if the government stopped transfering wealth? Sounds like you should buy a gun and some gold. Care to subscribe to my newsletter?

Matching funds for federal programs, money for roads and bridges, money for education, money for public improvements, money for the military bases which are the state's largest employers, money for all of the federal contractors.

For some reason I see only white people in Kerry's new world.

Then you are a racist.