|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 10:22:41 GMT -5
Bunch of crybabies.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 14, 2012 10:23:21 GMT -5
Does that make you a cretin? It would be worse if I moved. Then I would be an ex-cretin. Ewww!
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 10:28:59 GMT -5
'What is the argument for not breaking up the country?' Patriotism. At any cost?
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 14, 2012 10:41:04 GMT -5
Whatever happened to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship?"
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 10:46:49 GMT -5
I think they ought to be allowed to secede. One at a time. I'd even agree to using tax dollars to provide free passage to someplace nice, like Iran.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 10:51:12 GMT -5
Bunch of crybabies. That's all I have to say on the matter. -- King George III
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 10:53:52 GMT -5
Bunch of crybabies. That's all I have to say on the matter. -- King George III Don't know that one. I can sing Hen ery the Eighth, I am, I am.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 14, 2012 10:56:10 GMT -5
Whatever happened to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship?" The Post Office changed it to "Niether sleet nor snow nor dead of night, yada, yada".
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 11:00:28 GMT -5
It would be nice if when it came the break up was peaceful, but I think that's wishful thinking. Bogarting again, Doug? Pass it over. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 14, 2012 11:18:38 GMT -5
It would be nice if when it came the break up was peaceful, but I think that's wishful thinking. Bogarting again, Doug? Pass it over. Tim ;D ;D ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Rooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool another one. But Tramp expressed the biggest hurdle. Patriotism. That's why I don't think it's happening till the feds collapse. (next week ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) )
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 14, 2012 11:19:06 GMT -5
'What is the argument for not breaking up the country?' Patriotism. At any cost? Nobody has pointed out any cost so far.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 14, 2012 11:22:06 GMT -5
Nobody has pointed out any cost so far. Cost is your grandkids live like this: ![](http://www.hiphoprepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/great-depression-soup-line.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 14, 2012 11:55:33 GMT -5
The real cost is Texas dealing with Mexico without the backing of these guys.... ![](http://theconservativebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/usmilitarymight.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 11:57:43 GMT -5
When it all comes apart, its going to be about the math.
It breaks down like this:
Total Federal "explicit" debt : $16.2 trillion. Total Federal unfunded liabilities: $144 trillion (SS, Medicare, various pensions and other statutory obligations)
Total Federal Debt (explicit and unfunded) : $160.2 trillion
Total US population: 312 million
Total debt per person: $513 thousand
Now, take this from the perspective of my state of Nebraska. We have a small-ish population of a little over 1.8 million people. That means that our pro-rata share of the national debt works out to a smidge over $945 billion dollars.
That number is insane. That number is so large as to be completely meaningless. In no rational sense can 1.8 million people "owe" $945 billion dollars. You may as well ask my daughter Lydia to pick up our house and move it across the street. Its never going to happen.
So, if you are Nebraska, the calculus becomes giving up the various direct and indirect Federal payments that come into the state in exchange for wiping out $945 billion dollars worth of aggregate debt. When you look at it like that, its a total no-brainer. No amount of Federal government is worth $945 billion to the State of Nebraska. The state, collectively and individually, would instantaneously become far, far richer if we were to jettison our share of the Federal debt.
That suggests something of a domino effect. Or a death-spiral. If one state breaks off, the numbers for the remaining states become that much worse. Which makes their secession even more likely. And so on, and so on. The fact is, we are all richer without the Federal government than we are with it.
Contemplate that, and the instability it suggests.
Now, some will argue that my numbers are artificially inflated. That including the $144 trillion in implicit liabilities is an unreasonable thing to do.
Ok. Take them out.
Nebraska's pro-rata share of the remaining (explicit) debt is a smidge over $95 billion dollars, which is a number that is just as insane as saying we owe $945 billion. There is simply no way 1.8 million people can owe $95 billion dollars. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 12:23:08 GMT -5
And I believe that there are many things a central government can do much better than state and local governments can, and there are a handful of things that absolutely should be done by the federal government and should never be delegated to the states or, much worse, privatized. We disagree. We are not alone in that. We have a representative democracy with checks and balances to deal with that.Tim
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 12:35:57 GMT -5
I actually don't disagree with any of that. Some things are inherently national in scope, and need to be done nationally.
But that still leaves the question of how big the nation needs to be.
Germany seems to manage just fine at a little over 80 million people. Canada seems to manage with around 35 million people.
At 315 million people, we have managed to take what was once the wealthiest nation on earth and turn ourselves into the brokest nation in the history of being broke.
Unless we are looking at structural solutions, we are looking at collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 14, 2012 12:49:16 GMT -5
Don't worry, Jeff. All we have to do is cut taxes and everything will be solved.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 12:57:45 GMT -5
Don't worry, Jeff. All we have to do is cut taxes spending and everything will be solved. Fixed it for you. Problem is, you can't get there from here. Even if we had the political will to dramatically reform spending (which we don't), at best we are looking at decades of slow decline. But lacking that will, we are looking at a few years of stagnation, followed by the real fiscal cliff. Our current strategy (the "least syphilitic hooker in the whore-house" approach) can't go on forever.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 14, 2012 13:19:06 GMT -5
I think a break up is inevitable.
The more people a government rules the more dictatorial it has to become. The ideas of a proper government or so diverse that there is no way any government can work as ours (that doesn't work) has proved.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 14, 2012 13:33:14 GMT -5
I hear that Obama only wants to increase tax revenue by 130billion/yr, roughly 1/10 of his average deficit. He can get about 60billion from the rich. Where do you suppose he's aiming to get the other half? That tingle up your leg is just a Democrat searching for your wallet.
|
|