Godplace/Mission238 forums

If there is a government program from which I am eligible to benefit, but I am opposed in principle to the government operating such a program, is it ethical for me to receive its benefits?  Is it better for me to get back in the form of government services some of the tax money I've already payed, or is it better for me to refuse on principle to participate?  If I believed that my refusal to participate could contribute even a miniscule amount to the cancellation of the program, I would do it for that reason; but realistically, I know that my participation or refusal will have no real effect.

What do you think?

I'm not really convinced it's the place of the government to loan me money for college.  But knowing personally people who's parents paid fewer taxes in the last ten years than I've paid in the last two...and seeing their college completely paid for in the form of grants...I might as well get something for being taken advantage of by the government, even if I have to pay it back.

I pay taxes to support government programs, so when I am qualified to benefit, I think it is okay for me to do so, even if I think the whole program is abuse of the taxpayers.

I agree with the above sentiments.

If it was stolen from you, and you can get even a little of it back, then by all means do so.  By all rights it was and still is your money, so go ahead and take it back.  Go crazy!

:cool:

i have to agrea with the above stated as well.
get back all you can

*bump*


This was originally posted in the General Discussion forum, but I thought it might get more play here so I moved it.

JD

On the subject, I saw an interview with Ron Paul on Meet the Press where Tim Russert accused him of being inconsistent because his district had accepted earmarks for projects Paul didn't think was constitutional, but Paul didn't refuse the money.  Paul said essentially the same thing we've said here. 

Somewhat related to this subject (though somewhat off subject) here was a ~very~ interesting column in today's paper:


Tales from the trenches
By Steve Bailey
Globe Columnist / January 16, 2008

John O'Leary spent two years in the trenches running the most expensive unemployment insurance system in the nation. That, of course, would be the Massachusetts unemployment insurance system. Here is what he saw:

A Nantucket jewelry store owner who made about $50,000 in the summer of 2004 and then laid herself off and headed to Florida for the winter. In exchange for paying $1,534.40 in unemployment tax, she collected $528 a week for 30 weeks, plus $25 a week for each of her two children - or $17,340 mailed to her while she was "out of work" in the Sunshine State.

The family business - mom, dad, and grown child - that every year reduced the work schedules, and collected a wage subsidy through unemployment insurance. In 2004, the family business paid $5,100 in unemployment insurance premiums; family members collected $17,770 in benefits. The family also collected in 2003 and 2005.

The Brockton school bus driver who made $33,700 and another $7,620 in unemployment benefits - and collected for 24 years. He was outdone only by the interior decorator who collected for 25 years.

The details of each case have been altered to protect the individuals' confidentiality, O'Leary says. But each is an actual claim, in actual dollars, paid out by the state during O'Leary's tour of duty as director of the Division of Unemployment Assistance in the Romney administration.

The unemployment insurance system is one of our most basic safety nets, intended to provide a temporary bridge for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. But in Massachusetts, a state long dominated by a single political party that too often answers to organized labor, the unemployment insurance system has become something else: one more expensive barrier to job creation and a disincentive to reemployment.

Massachusetts is never going to be a low-cost place to do business. But to an impressive degree, the Commonwealth has made progress in confronting some of the key issues - and attitudes - that earned us our reputation as Taxachusetts. The unemployment insurance system remains one of those outliers that still needs to be fixed.

In a new analysis, O'Leary and Steve Poftak, research director at the Pioneer Institute, the conservative Boston think tank, say Massachusetts leads the nation in unemployment insurance taxes - an average of $637 per employee in 2005, or about twice the national average of $315. They blame the huge disparity on a number of factors, including: generous benefits, massive cross-subsidies for certain industries, the ability of the self-employed to lay themselves off, and what they call "frequent fliers" - those who turn up on the unemployment rolls year after year.

Cutting benefits is always dicey, all the more so with a recession maybe already underway. But there are perverse incentives in the system that can be repaired even without touching the benefits - up to $600 a week per employee, or about 50 percent above the national average. Take the big cross-subsidies.

All insurance has cross-subsidies. But in the unemployment insurance system certain sectors - most notably construction and other seasonal industries - use the program as a regular wage supplement. Under the system, companies are taxed based on their experience of benefits paid to former employees. But the tax maxes out at $1,530 per employee. "At the maximum benefit rate of $600 a week (the highest in the country), it's easy to see the incentive to utilize the system to augment wages in certain seasonal industry," Pioneer says.

Those subsidies exceeded $312 million in 2005, much of that to ongoing businesses that effectively use the system as a wage subsidy to their workforce, Pioneer says. Industries like finance and insurance are picking up the bill.

The Patrick administration is open to using the broken system as a chit in its negotiations with the business community over the issue of closing so-called corporate tax loopholes. A freeze in the unemployment insurance rates, for instance, for a deal on the broader business tax issues. But freezing the rates would not even begin to address the problem.

When it comes to costs, you never want to be on top - where Massachusetts is on unemployment insurance costs. Energy and healthcare, just to name two, represent big, intractable costs for the region. Unemployment insurance, by comparison, is the kind of discrete, fixable problem that can be resolved by reasonable people.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/16/tales_from_the_trenches/


~~~~~

And while I think the examples above are the tangible evidence of why the government should not be involved in half the welfare programs they provide, you'd better believe I'd collect if I was in the position of needing it, so long as it's there and my employer has been paying into it for me for whatever plus years I've been working.

This subject has taken on a whole new meaning with the Healthcare reform.

I read that insurance companies have no real competition still and instead can jack up their prices because the government can catch the rest.  I haven't had insurance for years but in a few more will be fined for not having it.  Do I pay the fine, in protest to the whole mess?  Or do I get on the government insurance program?  I'm going to have to pay either way now.  Thus far we just pay our med. bills ourselves, though we don't go to the Dr. much in the first place.

But we do pay taxes, and for things like Titus' example, I feel like basically you are paying in to pay yourself. 

Quote from: MellowYellow on March 23, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
This subject has taken on a whole new meaning with the Healthcare reform.

I read that insurance companies have no real competition still and instead can jack up their prices because the government can catch the rest.  I haven't had insurance for years but in a few more will be fined for not having it.  Do I pay the fine, in protest to the whole mess?  Or do I get on the government insurance program?  I'm going to have to pay either way now.  Thus far we just pay our med. bills ourselves, though we don't go to the Dr. much in the first place.

But we do pay taxes, and for things like Titus' example, I feel like basically you are paying in to pay yourself. 

On the fines...I actually have read that rather than send you some sort of fine through the mail, enforcement will consist, at least at first, of withholding income tax refunds from those that don't comply with the federal mandate.  There really isn't a government insurance program (other than Medicaid, but is your family at the income level that would allow you to take advantage of that?), so you'll have to either find a private insurance company or have your income tax refund withheld. 

Btw, a recent report that was released revealed that at least 47 percent of citizens don't pay income taxes (this isn't medicare/medicaid, social security or other income taxes, just the federal income tax).

47% really?!  That is quite a lot of people.  I've now heard that too about taking it from taxes, I also read/heard that it won't be until 2014, but I am having trouble believing anything anymore from the B.O. administration.

We pay, and Nathan doesn't even have a steady job.  He subcontracts out jobs, but he has a separate account and records to pay taxes.  If he should ever be audited, he wants to pass with flying colors.

It all just stinks I tell ya. 

Yeah, the federal mandate doesn't kick in until 2014, and the fines at least the first year or two are relatively small.  Although I don't know if they will be taking out the fine from your refund, or just withholding your whole refund.  My parents are in much the same position...my dad owns his own business and does subcontract work with other companies.

Other provisions of the plan kick in right away, and the taxes are going to kick in right away too.  Well...most of them.  The tax on "cadillac" health plans won't kick in til like 2018...the reason being that the Dems don't want to tick off union members, a huge portion of their base.  I'll be affected as early as next year.  The legislation puts a cap on Flex Spending plans...for those unfamiliar, it's a health benefit provided by many employers where you can designate a certain amount of your check to be taken out for the upcoming year to cover health care costs, and that income will not be taxed.  It's usually capped at around 5K...thanks to Obama, the cap has been cut in half.  Heather and I are hopeful that she'll be pregnant again before the end of this year (thanks to the miracle of embryo adoptions  :grin: ), but we won't be able to take out as much $$$ as we would have because of the new health care legislation. 

In addition to the Dems giving the unions some slack (by deferring the taxes on their gold health care plans) they cut the trial lawyers some slack by putting no meaningful tort reform in the legislation.  As far as I know, the legislation also does not end the ridiculous prohibition on buying insurance policies across state lines, which means no real competition.

I got an email saying Muslims, Amish and some others would be exempt for Religious reasons from having to have insurance.  I wonder if that's true.

I'm converting.

I finally filled out our Census after they sent us a notice and another Census...lol

I cannot really articulate it but it infuriated me.  Not just cause they need to know my business, but because they want my phone number too!  So I left that blank, they're the government, they can figure it out if they want it.

And they better not have a problem with the way I answered race.  I am not white, black, or native American, I'm of Hispanic origin!  I do not understand why that is not counted anymore?  Seems kinda dumb, what are all the full blown Mexicans answering for # 6?  I wrote rather firmly- Hispanic... lol 

I no longer believe that the census is so they can have an accurate state representative quota.  I believe it is soley information to use at their disposal in whatever other way which will be increasingly evil as the day approaches.

We pay taxes, we have birth certificates, we have social security #s, we are registered to vote, we have bank accounts, we live in a residential place, why do they yet need a census?! 

Quote from: MellowYellow on April 13, 2010, 02:49:52 AM
why do they yet need a census?! 

hmmm... revenue, a job increase report so Obama can brag that he improved employment rates, and like all things if ya deal with something long enuff you can learn to do new things (evil) with them! just a few thoughts. :smirk: ;)

Why don't all these people who want to ruin our country go to Mexico! Now THERE'S a country that needs fixing. They can go there and kick all the drug lords out and take over the Mexicans. I'd bet they'd like it.  :hypocrite:

Quote from: The Purple Fuzzy on April 12, 2010, 09:37:00 PM
I got an email saying Muslims, Amish and some others would be exempt for Religious reasons from having to have insurance.  I wonder if that's true.

I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember reading about religious exemptions.  However, I doubt this just applies across the board to certain religious groups.  You would probably have to explain to an IRS agent your religious convictions and why they prohibited you from buying health insurance.

Quote
I cannot really articulate it but it infuriated me.  Not just cause they need to know my business, but because they want my phone number too!  So I left that blank, they're the government, they can figure it out if they want it.

I was one of the lucky ones who got the American Community Survey...it's also put out by the census bureau, but only sent to 3 million random homes.  It asks questions like "What time do you leave for work in the morning" "How far is your drive to work"  How much is your average electric bill"  "How many acres of property is your home on"  and on and on.  We filled out the census (against my better judgment we answered even the unconstitutional questions)  but I drew the line with this. 

Quote from: MellowYellow on April 13, 2010, 02:49:52 AM
And they better not have a problem with the way I answered race.  I am not white, black, or native American, I'm of Hispanic origin!  I do not understand why that is not counted anymore?  Seems kinda dumb, what are all the full blown Mexicans answering for # 6?  I wrote rather firmly- Hispanic... lol 

I put "human."  What a ridiculous question for them to ask.

*Hindsight*  I should have put Relay!   :laughhard:

Or two-legged?  ;D

Here's a new, real-life scenario related to the topic of this thread.  Some explanation of my situation is required, so bear with me.  I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

In February 2009 I was laid off, and immediately filed to receive unemployment benefits.  (This is one government program I definitely have no qualms about benefiting from, as it's essentially an insurance program that I indirectly pay into.)  At the time I filed, my benefit amount set at a certain level.

During that time my wife and I were in the middle of an international adoption.  Part of adopting internationally involves getting permission from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to bring into this country a child from another country.  In talking with our adoption agency they informed us that if the USCIS saw on our application that I was collecting unemployment benefits, they would almost certainly deny us.  As we were convinced the Lord had a child waiting for us, we decided to keep the adoption process moving forward, and elected to stop receiving unemployment benefits.

At the time I spoke with a representative of our State's Employment Department, and he assured me that if I stopped receiving benefits at that time I could resume at a later date collecting the same amount.  As I understood it, I was to receive unemployment benefits at the level they determined for a maximum of twelve months - but those twelve months did not have to be consecutive.

Fast-forward eleven months: in January 2010 we brought our new daughter home.  I called the Employment Department to restart my unemployment claim, and everything seemed to come off without a hitch; within a couple of weeks I had my first benefit check, for the same amount as before, in my hand.

Two weeks later, around the anniversary of my being laid off, I received notice from the Employment Department that because it had been a year since I first filed, I would have to file a brand-new claim.  I did so, and was accepted, but was told that my benefit amount was to be about a third of what it was before.  I tried to explain what I had been told before, that my benefit should remain the same until I had collected twelve months' worth, but was told unequivocally that this was not the case, and my new benefit amount was the maximum I was eligible to receive.  Though I was disappointed, of course I opted to receive the new benefit amount.  A little help is better than none, and my family certainly needed the financial assistance.

Fast-forward again to just a couple of days ago (end of April): I was talking to another Employment Department representative about a different issue, and after reviewing my case she, to my surprise, said it appeared to her that my new claim had been filed in error.  That, in fact, a new claim should not have been filed at all, but I should have continued to receive benefits under the previous claim - just as I had expected!

They're still reviewing my case, so this still hasn't been finalized, but last I heard it sounds almost certain that they're going to return me to my previous higher benefit amount.  They are also supposed to retroactively pay the higher amount for all the weeks I've been receiving the lower amount.

Here's where my dilemma, and the connection to this thread's topic, comes in: she said they wouldn't pay me the difference between the higher amount and the lower amount, but instead would just pay me the higher amount - then in a separate transaction ask me to return all the benefits I've received at the lower amount.  But she said that because the error had been theirs, her expectation was that I should not have to pay anything back, and if they ask me to I should simply request to have them waive that requirement.

Would it be unethical of me to keep the money, as it would exceed the amount to which they have determined I am entitled?  Should I return the money if they ask me to, or should I do as their own representative advised, and try to keep it?

If they can legally waive the requirement, I would ask them to do it.  As you've stated, it's an insurance program you pay indirectly into, and other taxes that have been taken out of past paychecks are for programs you may never benefit from.  In the long run, I imagine the government will take more from you than you ever will from them. As long as it's not cheating the system or gaining through dishonesty, I don't see any moral conflict.

Just my 2cents.

I'm with Bishop on that one.

:beret:

Quote from: MellowYellow on April 13, 2010, 02:49:52 AM
We pay taxes, we have birth certificates, we have social security #s, we are registered to vote, we have bank accounts, we live in a residential place, why do they yet need a census?! 

Apparently when they send you the second census, according to my government professor - you HAVE to fill it out. She had gotten one during the last census and didn't realize what the envelope contained thinking it was junk mail, and she started receiving phone calls. It really is quite a hassle. What does the government REALLY need all this information for?
(I was half tempted not to fiill it out, but I didn't really like the idea of someone showing up at my door.. "May I see your papers?" Plus, I figured I would try and save the government a little bit of money because I'm such a good un-American.)

On another note, I read an article or blog (maybe?) on the Washington Post... apparently many American's are offended that Obama chose his race as African American.. Point being that if we are to be truthful on the census we shouldn't choose the race we "identify" with, but the actual race you are biracial or not...

Great to see you Chérie!

Yeah, I didn't really know the law about it until the 2nd one came.  I filled it out for the same reason, I do not want them coming to my house.  That'd probably put a flag on me anyway for future endeavors.

I filled out my census form; I was surprised by how simple and brief it was.

Quote from: bishopnl on December 12, 2007, 11:08:51 PM
I'm not really convinced it's the place of the government to loan me money for college...

I didn't understand why the government does this until recently. It's to gain tax revenue. People who go to college tend to earn more and therefore pay more in taxes; it's the same principle behind why judges rarely give lengthy prison sentences to white collar criminals.

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 02:36:00 AM

Quote from: bishopnl on December 12, 2007, 11:08:51 PM
I'm not really convinced it's the place of the government to loan me money for college...

I didn't understand why the government does this until recently. It's to gain tax revenue. People who go to college tend to earn more and therefore pay more in taxes; it's the same principle behind why judges rarely give lengthy prison sentences to white collar criminals.

Sure, I understand WHY they loan it...Just don't find in the constitution the legality of loans to private citizens for the purpose of education. 

I think we both know that pure, strict adherence to the Constitution was lost long before we were born. It will never be regained; we have to move on and make the best of new realities.

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 06:38:37 AM
I think we both know that pure, strict adherence to the Constitution was lost long before we were born. It will never be regained; we have to move on and make the best of new realities.

I agree with your first statement.  And the first part of the second statement.  As for the last part, I guess it depends on what "moving on" entails.  My personal opinion is that the country is slowly but surely heading for a split.  If so, I believe that is a positive thing (provided it can be done peacefully and amicably). If not, I'll continue to support people who believe in pure, strict adherence to the Constitution, few that there are.

Quote from: bishopnl on May 12, 2010, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 06:38:37 AM
I think we both know that pure, strict adherence to the Constitution was lost long before we were born. It will never be regained; we have to move on and make the best of new realities.

I agree with your first statement.  And the first part of the second statement.  As for the last part, I guess it depends on what "moving on" entails.  My personal opinion is that the country is slowly but surely heading for a split.  If so, I believe that is a positive thing (provided it can be done peacefully and amicably). If not, I'll continue to support people who believe in pure, strict adherence to the Constitution, few that there are.

By split you mean?

Interesting topics... :cool:

Quote from: YooperYankDude on May 12, 2010, 02:39:44 PM

By split you mean?

Interesting topics... :cool:

A splintering of the country.  States dividing by regional or economic interests.  I don't believe the country can sustain the current ideological divide, not to mention the economic difficulties we will face in the next 15 to 20 years.

It usually takes hunger to spur a revolution. People might not be happy, but if they aren't hungry they're unlikely to do much about it.

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 05:32:52 PM
It usually takes hunger to spur a revolution. People might not be happy, but if they aren't hungry they're unlikely to do much about it.

I think people's frustration is reaching a high enough level that a divide might be a possibility.  I'm not talking about a violent overthrow of the government.  I think people will likely just begin to advocate for more state independence, to the point where it becomes necessary for states to disassociate from the government. 

You could be right, though.  Many people can be placated if they get a few bones thrown their way.  And I'm afraid too many people believe the solution is just to replace the current party of power with the opposition. 

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 05:32:52 PM
It usually takes hunger to spur a revolution. People might not be happy, but if they aren't hungry they're unlikely to do much about it.

It didn't take hunger to cause the split that led to the American Civil War.

Quote from: titushome on May 12, 2010, 08:18:46 PM
It didn't take hunger to cause the split that led to the American Civil War.

Good point, but I'm talking about revolutions that succeed.

Quote from: bishopnl on May 12, 2010, 06:44:15 PM
And I'm afraid too many people believe the solution is just to replace the current party of power with the opposition.  

bishopnl, you're obviously an intelligent man. That's clear from your posts. Why waste your time, your intellect, fighting battles that won't amount to a hill of beans come Judgment Day? Work within the system, corrupt though it may be, and benefit yourself, your family, and the Church. The man who brought me into the Church works in telecommunications; he's a wealthy man by most standards. He once told me the reason he had confidence in communications as a career is that the devil(s) will use worldwide communications; it has been prophesied. Instead of fighting for the perceivable, what could be accomplished if you stopped fighting against the inevitable?

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 13, 2010, 06:12:08 AM

Quote from: bishopnl on May 12, 2010, 06:44:15 PM
And I'm afraid too many people believe the solution is just to replace the current party of power with the opposition.  

bishopnl, you're obviously an intelligent man. That's clear from your posts. Why waste your time, your intellect, fighting battles that won't amount to a hill of beans come Judgment Day? Work within the system, corrupt though it may be, and benefit yourself, your family, and the Church. The man who brought me into the Church works in telecommunications; he's a wealthy man by most standards. He once told me the reason he had confidence in communications as a career is that the devil(s) will use worldwide communications; it has been prophesied. Instead of fighting for the perceivable, what could be accomplished if you stopped fighting against the inevitable?

There is a difference between using technology in a godly fashion, and using government in a corrupt fashion in order to further advance the Kingdom of God.  Both technology and government can be used in corrupt fashions.  However, if I purchase air time and broadcast a commercial advertising my church, it is myself and my church who are responsible for both the content, and the financing of it.  We can choose how the money is spent, we can choose what to spend it on.  And if souls are saved, God is glorified.

By contrast, when using the government to say, feed the poor there are marked differences.  For one, the Church is not responsible for how the money is spent, meaning that in addition to feeding the poor, we also donate money to wage war or finance abortion.  Two, it's not our money.  We use the power of the police state to confiscate the money of others in order to accomplish our "charitable works." And three, God is not glorified.  The government is glorified, and they proclaim their goodness to the voters so they can be re-elected.  This is to say nothing of the fact that it is in violation of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

So, in answer to your question, I believe it is inherently immoral for the Church to advocate for the use corrupt means and excuse it by saying they are doing so to spread the Gospel.  God is not glorified in this, and it harms both the country and the Church.  As for "fighting the inevitable," it is inevitable that many people will reject Christ, but we shouldn't stop preaching Him.  Likewise, I won't stop advocating a return to a Constitutional republic, even if it's likely we are headed in the opposite direction.

Btw, I think I should make something clear.  You say "Work within the system..."  I think I've stated elsewhere I don't believe it's sinful for a person to benefit from the system, particularly if they are paying into it.  I know many people who have received financial assistance for whatever reason, and there is no moral obligation to refuse it.  You can at least be assured that THAT money will not be used for evil means. 

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 12, 2010, 09:12:04 PM

Quote from: titushome on May 12, 2010, 08:18:46 PM
It didn't take hunger to cause the split that led to the American Civil War.

Good point, but I'm talking about revolutions that succeed.

Well, bishop predicted only that a split is likely coming to this nation in the near future - he didn't predict whether it would be successful.  That remains, assuming his prediction is accurate, to be seen.

I doubt the federal government will allow a split today, any more than it would during the Civil War. And the weapons it has at its disposal are far, far superior. If I remember correctly, the Gatling gun was invented to end the Civil War... it was new technology. Yes, it's technically illegal for the US Armed forces to operate on American soil, but the state National Guards can. Combine all this with the fact that the European countries are no longer a formidable military power; alliances with France or Brittan couldn't offer us the support needed; would the Chinese be called on for help? Highly unlikely, and considering how heavily invested they are in our economy I can't see that a Civil War would be in their best interests anyway... they probably want to help the Federal Government crush the resistance so the country could get back to business as usual. 

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 15, 2010, 04:18:38 PM
I doubt the federal government will allow a split today, any more than it would during the Civil War. And the weapons it has at its disposal are far, far superior. If I remember correctly, the Gatling gun was invented to end the Civil War... it was new technology. Yes, it's technically illegal for the US Armed forces to operate on American soil, but the state National Guards can. Combine all this with the fact that the European countries are no longer a formidable military power; alliances with France or Brittan couldn't offer us the support needed; would the Chinese be called on for help? Highly unlikely, and considering how heavily invested they are in our economy I can't see that a Civil War would be in their best interests anyway... they probably want to help the Federal Government crush the resistance so the country could get back to business as usual. 

I don't say that unequivocally a state would be allowed to leave, but I think the world is different today than it was in 1861.  The government has a hard time mustering public support for wars in foreign countries.  How much more difficult would it be if they were sending tanks into US cities and gunning down American citizens?  People reacting to the visuals would go berserk.  Video technology, live reports, the internet....and how would the rest of the world react to an American government they already distrust slaughtering its own citizens?  Further, many military members would refuse to take part...not too mention that the manpower of the Civil War came from volunteers and militias. I see it as doubtful that states would rush to support a government that many already loathe and distrust. 

Of course, the government could claim a "state of emergency," assume dictatorial powers, and shut down the media.  Then who knows what would happen. 

Quote from: bishopnl on May 17, 2010, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: The Cold Water Kid on May 15, 2010, 04:18:38 PM
I doubt the federal government will allow a split today, any more than it would during the Civil War. And the weapons it has at its disposal are far, far superior. If I remember correctly, the Gatling gun was invented to end the Civil War... it was new technology. Yes, it's technically illegal for the US Armed forces to operate on American soil, but the state National Guards can. Combine all this with the fact that the European countries are no longer a formidable military power; alliances with France or Brittan couldn't offer us the support needed; would the Chinese be called on for help? Highly unlikely, and considering how heavily invested they are in our economy I can't see that a Civil War would be in their best interests anyway... they probably want to help the Federal Government crush the resistance so the country could get back to business as usual. 

I don't say that unequivocally a state would be allowed to leave, but I think the world is different today than it was in 1861.  The government has a hard time mustering public support for wars in foreign countries.  How much more difficult would it be if they were sending tanks into US cities and gunning down American citizens?  People reacting to the visuals would go berserk.  Video technology, live reports, the internet....and how would the rest of the world react to an American government they already distrust slaughtering its own citizens?  Further, many military members would refuse to take part...not too mention that the manpower of the Civil War came from volunteers and militias. I see it as doubtful that states would rush to support a government that many already loathe and distrust. 

Of course, the government could claim a "state of emergency," assume dictatorial powers, and shut down the media.  Then who knows what would happen. 

I am a former military member, and from the point of view of someone who has served, and knowing why I joined... I would tend to say that MOST of the Men and Women in uniform would refuse to fire on American Civilians...

I joined to serve and protect my home... and my loved ones... from dangers domestic and abroad!

There are many, many people in the US who are involved with the militia, they do have a lot of power, and if they all pooled together, they could cause quite a bit of damage... but I don't think they would be fighting American troops though, I personally think that it would be foreign mercenary troops they would be fighting and worrying about firing on Americans.

But a lot of this is all conjecture, because it would mean the loss of more American lives, and upheaval of society as we are used to it... most people are not willing to put their money where their mouths are... I did, I joined the USAF... and when others were trying to get out of their BT dates, because of 9/11, I was asking if there was anyway to leave sooner! I was put out on a medical discharge against my will for Asthma... not given a choice!

This country is in need of something that it most likely will not get, most people forget what the Constitution says...
So honestly, I don't know that there is an answer...