Iowa ought to secede from the United States of America

I don't know about the debate, but you can go ahead and "when" round two. Again, that first sentences is kind of a doozie. I kind of just want to ignore it… Right, Iowa doesn't have to "physically separate" from the United States to secede. The United States didn't dig a giant moat between itself and Canada. It's called a treaty. If the United States were to recognize Iowa's independence, with that would come recognition of its sovereignty and borders. Lots of countries have their own currencies. In fact, some countries, like Belize for example, base their currency rate directly on another currency. So, we could make every unit of Iowan currency be half of a Euro, or half of a pound. Secession would have its bumps and scratches, but I hardly think that our economy would collapse. Again, we produce things and trade agreements between nations are made all of the time. We'd be our own established government, and we wouldn't need federal backing. That's the point of secession, telling the federal government where to stick their nine trillion dollar deficit. Iowa has had better education that most of the country on average well before No Child Left Behind. Most Iowan teachers want the policy to go away because it has actually worsened our education. Very little federal funding is devoted toward Iowan schools. Most of our funding is derived from property taxes. The community pays for the schools. Maybe that's why we care so much? You're showing me firsthand how well California's schools educate. If you're not a C or D student in English, there's a problem with your education system. "On to my opponents third point first lets look to how many states we have 50 iowa is one of 50 states" What does that have to do with my third point? My third point was that the federal government is preventing Iowa from having more positive international relationships. The financial status of Iowa? Iowa's budget is balanced, and to be honest when the federal government cuts funding to federally started programs that we here in Iowa like, we tend to pick up the bill. When the federal government decided to cut funding to shelters for battered wives while at the same time running a massive deficit, Iowa decided to fund the women's shelters and we still had to maintain a balanced budget. In case you meant economic status, instead of financial status. Our currency is massively inflating, our tax dollars go towards interest instead of infrastructure or anything meaningful. Wallstreet is teetering, and we're one natural disaster or war away from an economic collapse. I'm not the only Iowan that doesn't agree with our foreign policy decisions. There's about 1300 Maytag workers who got to lose their jobs because their plant closed and move to Mexico that probably don't agree with the United States' foreign policy. There are hundreds of thousands of people against the war in Iraq that don't agree with the United States' foreign policy. I'm glad that you've consulted five people that don't live in Iowa about Iowa. The fact that you dislike our state is a prime indication as to why we should not be interesting in remaining in the same government as you. You probably don't realize that you consume Iowan products on a daily basis. The argument isn't about the medical field, the argument is showing how the Medicare reimbursements system is unfairly punishing Iowa. Medicare has been increased over time so that medical advancements can be afforded, it's just that other states which were more wasteful in the 1960s get much larger amounts of money per person than Iowa does. I don't know what the Center for Disease Control has to do with your statement. Medical care is again a product of the market. Iowa will be just as well served by the venders of medical technology as we are now.