|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 13:36:49 GMT -5
$130 billion per year (never mind the political game of musical chairs being played regarding who actually has to pay it) is inconsequential vis-a-vis our debt and deficit situation.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 13:37:43 GMT -5
Bruce, your post reminds me of the PJ O'Rourke quote : "The good news is, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is, according to the Obama administration, you're rich".
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 14, 2012 13:39:57 GMT -5
Bruce, your post reminds me of the PJ O'Rourke quote : "The good news is, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is, according to the Obama administration, you're rich". 'zactly, but I try to write my own material.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 14, 2012 14:06:17 GMT -5
You know, Canada could easily be broken up into regions too, and we have our share of secessionists. Québec is an old story, Alberta is a new one and Newfoundland has long been an uneasy partner in the federation. However, Québec would be a disaster financially on its own. Newfoundland is newly rich because of oil but that is bloody all they have now that the fishery is dead. Alberta is newly rich as well, as long as the price of oil is inflated in order to make the tar sands viable and provided there is a foreign market, that is, you guys. Disaster is looming for all of them if they secede. Not to mention the awkward federal debt and the abrupt end to the benefit of common currency, passports, common markets, federal transfer payments.
In the end I suspect that your scenario of dominos falling until the entire US is a series of tiny unviable countries is not about to come about, Jeff. It is fine to be all huffy because you don't like the result of a democratic election, it is quite another to voluntarily bankrupt yourself.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 14:21:38 GMT -5
Isn't secession, like....what's the word? Treason? Wouldn't planning or even discussing the potential of secession be, like, plotting to steal a chunk of territory and resources from your own country?
Can we throw Rick Perry in jail now?
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Nov 14, 2012 14:24:02 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. Good luck passing through Indiana with an Arizona or Nebraska passport. We're building a damn fence.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 14:29:10 GMT -5
'What is the argument for not breaking up the country?' Patriotism. At any cost? What kind of cost do you need? We'd throw a soldier in jail for leaving his post without permission. GOP radicals are talking about revolting against the republic over money management. And the last time they had the checkbook themselves, they bounced paper all over the Mall of Arabia. We have absolutely no reason to believe that their fiscal responsibility is any less of a lie than it has alway been. The price of their patriotism is what, exactly? Belief in their own bullshit? State's rights? I got Rick Perry's fiscal responsibility right here: He's bluffing. It's not even a good bluff. He's mostly just boviating. Got good hair, though. Tim
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 14:34:13 GMT -5
It's a convenient template to say this is about GOP extremism, but the reality is the oldest and probably most active secession movement in the country comes from the Left in Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 14:43:15 GMT -5
It's a convenient template to say this is about GOP extremism, but the reality is the oldest and probably most active secession movement in the country comes from the Left in Vermont. Uh, your lack of geographical skills is showing. Any map will tell you that Vermont is on the right.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 14:43:33 GMT -5
It's a convenient template to say this is about GOP extremism, but the reality is the oldest and probably most active secession movement in the country comes from the Left in Vermont. Its not just a convenient template, it's an easy case to make when the current Vermont secession movement was started in 2003, and is the brain child and organization of a nutty former Duke professor, as opposed to notion of Texas secession, that periodically blows from the business end of their governor and a once leading candidate for the GOP nomination to the presidency of the United States. The things you guys will see as the same to keep from seeing the truth.... Tim PS: Oh and what is it, other than the fact that he currently resides in Vermont, that makes you think Thomas Naylor is a leftie?
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Nov 14, 2012 14:50:49 GMT -5
In the end I suspect that your scenario of dominos falling until the entire US is a series of tiny unviable countries is not about to come about, Jeff. It is fine to be all huffy because you don't like the result of a democratic election, it is quite another to voluntarily bankrupt yourself. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Jeff's numbers would be in about the same place regardless who won this election. I know I'm not smart enough to know the answers. I know I understand the conservative stance on the debt because it mimics how we all run our households or businesses. What I don't have have is a firm grasp of the Dem vision of how it is we don't default and implode given the staggering numbers. I'm assuming some combination of printing more money + tax increases and entitlement cuts coming soon from congress + decrease in war costs + the economy will hopefully improve = the deficit trend starting to move downward?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 14:51:28 GMT -5
Personally, I'd be glad to be rid of the secessionists. Threatening to break up the country because they can't have their way is about the last straw, IMO. They should leave. Just quit bitching, and leave.
I like the bent logic of leaving the union (do we still call it a "union?") because they want to get out from under the debt. If the whole country secedes does that mean the debt evaporates?
Most of that debt is owned by us. Wouldn't it be easier to tell the debt owners that we're not going to pay up? Wouldn't that be the same but easier and without all the drama?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 14, 2012 14:54:52 GMT -5
funny thing about that petition. You can read it at the White House website. You can also see every name of every person who signed it along with their city and state if they listed it. A huge percentage of people signing it aren't from Texas. they are from all sorts of states. So this isn't some groundswell of fiscal gung ho guys wanting to leave the Union to preserve the checkbook. This is a bunch of people in the other 49 states saying, "Get the heck out."
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 15:11:22 GMT -5
What I don't have have is a firm grasp of the Dem vision of how it is we don't default and implode given the staggering numbers. I'm assuming some combination of printing more money + tax increases and entitlement cuts coming soon from congress + decrease in war costs + the economy will hopefully improve = the deficit trend starting to move downward? I don't know if anyone has a firm grasp on that. We left the gold standard and household type finances, or checkbook balancing, long ago. We have little choice but to keep forging ahead with continued growth, because once we go in the other direction we can't necessarily control it, and it's a long way down. But with GDP growth we will (or should) gain new jobs which means additional revenues and fewer people on safety net programs. And the larger the GDP is in relation to debt, the easier it is to pay down the debt. We can still grow. The big questions are how much it'll cost us to do it, and once we're back on track, whether we'll start running surpluses and making payments on the debt, or if instead we'll find fun new wars to get into and/or launch new subsidies for the rich.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 15:12:31 GMT -5
funny thing about that petition. You can read it at the White House website. You can also see every name of every person who signed it along with their city and state if they listed it. A huge percentage of people signing it aren't from Texas. they are from all sorts of states. So this isn't some groundswell of fiscal gung ho guys wanting to leave the Union to preserve the checkbook. This is a bunch of people in the other 49 states saying, "Get the heck out." Well that's just mean. I think Texans should write back and say "no."
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 15:13:22 GMT -5
Meaning it's exceedingly simplistic and doesn't propose any real solutions that add up? Yeah, I understand that too.
Do you have a firm grasp of the GOP's vision of that? Please share if you do.
Yeah, it's annoying. Unfortunately if they were allowed to suceed, they'd take a whole lot of innocent people, who aren't bitching, with them to la la land.
Now there's an idea that's time has come. Solve the problem in one fell swoop. And no one would ever buy a US Bond again, ensuring that we'd have to manage our budget paycheck to paycheck, just like our biggest spenders claim we should...when they're not in power.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 15:27:01 GMT -5
Yeah, it's annoying. Unfortunately if they were allowed to suceed, they'd take a whole lot of innocent people, who aren't bitching, with them to la la land. No, I meant more like "Love It Or Leave It," but I didn't want to say that. I don't think secession is a good idea, particularly in the wake of an election, but if some people want to leave the U.S., they're free to go, by themselves, in small groups, or clustered together on a big boat.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Nov 14, 2012 15:41:50 GMT -5
Tim my question was an honest one and not coming from a place of snark. I'm not claiming any conservative superiority on the position of national debt. I'm just curious to know going forward with an obviously more Democrat agenda now if there is a consensus blueprint of how it unfolds and what has to happen to achieve a positive outcome. I'm also assuming you and I are starting from the same "we're totally screwed" place but maybe that's not even the case. If the answer is "nobody knows sure hope this all works out" then fine.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 15:44:59 GMT -5
I think there's a rough framework, but not much beyond that. Note that even leading economists are not very good at predicting the future, and most of the plans that I've seen seem to have holes or flaws.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 14, 2012 15:46:46 GMT -5
You know, Canada could easily be broken up into regions too, and we have our share of secessionists. Québec is an old story, Alberta is a new one and Newfoundland has long been an uneasy partner in the federation. However, Québec would be a disaster financially on its own. Newfoundland is newly rich because of oil but that is bloody all they have now that the fishery is dead. Alberta is newly rich as well, as long as the price of oil is inflated in order to make the tar sands viable and provided there is a foreign market, that is, you guys. Disaster is looming for all of them if they secede. Not to mention the awkward federal debt and the abrupt end to the benefit of common currency, passports, common markets, federal transfer payments. In the end I suspect that your scenario of dominos falling until the entire US is a series of tiny unviable countries is not about to come about, Jeff. It is fine to be all huffy because you don't like the result of a democratic election, it is quite another to voluntarily bankrupt yourself. Thing is, we already have (bankrupted ourselves, that is). We're more broke than any country in the known universe, in all of history. By a long shot. The numbers can't be ignored. And I question your notion of "tiny, unviable countries". Canada is the 35th most populous country on the planet. Round numbers, you could create ten "Canada's" out of the US. There is no inherent requirement that we have 300+ million people. This isn't so much about losing an election as it is about recognizing that we have no realistic hope of changing our course. Insolvency is now inevitable. That was almost certainly the case no matter who won the election. But while Romney/Ryan offered a thin sliver of hope, Obama offers none. More importantly, the country as a whole has demonstrably chosen to either ignore or disagree with the warnings. When the US falls, as it inevitably will, the consequences will be horrific for the world. That is coming. I don't see any possibility of putting it off for even ten more years. A breakup of the US is one of many possible outcomes. It may or may not happen in my lifetime (although history says it will happen eventually). But whatever form our downfall takes, the die has been cast.
|
|