|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 15:58:38 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. Good Lord. What thin sliver of hope did Romney/Ryan offer? Was there something in their secret payment plan for their 5 trillion (excuse me, 4.8) in tax cuts that was going to raise the money to save us? Wait a minute...all those tax cuts were going to create incredible prosperity that was going to grow us out of this problem, right? So are you going to keep making binders and carry on until armagedon? Or are you stockpiling canned goods, water and automatic weapons in your bunker? Tim
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 14, 2012 16:01:20 GMT -5
I had more hope for growth under Romney/Ryan than under Obama. Now I'll just try to figure out how to survive without growth.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 14, 2012 16:02:21 GMT -5
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. Actually, we're richer than any country in the known universe, in all of history. By a long shot. The numbers can't be ignored. As I see it, we have three major crises, and the priority changes only in different people's opinions: 1. Our debt. Left unchecked, it may be the end of us. If it goes badly, we'll be a third world country. 2. Income inequality. Left unchecked, it may be the end of us. If it goes badly, we'll be a third world country. 3. Climate change. Good news here. If it goes badly, we will not be a third world country. All countries will cease to exist. Nobody will be better off than we are. Of course, we'll all be dead, so that part will suck. There may be other good, equally valid reasons to think the sky is falling, but I can't think of any off hand.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 16:37:31 GMT -5
I had more hope for growth under Romney/Ryan than under Obama. Now I'll just try to figure out how to survive without growth. It was false hope, Bruce. Those guys had nothing. Your best hope at this point is a president who has run his last campaign and a Congress that really needs to show some game. This is it. Personally, I think "without growth" may be the answer for all of us. We have a world economic system dependent on perpetual growth, so when we haven't been able to get it, we've faked it or bought it. Bubbles. False value. Debt. Now here we are. Can perpetual growth possibly be sustainable? Uh...no. Perhaps we need a collapse to re-calibrate. We won't change the model any other way, but we may be able to save it for another generation or two if we have the will. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 14, 2012 16:43:57 GMT -5
I had more hope for growth under Romney/Ryan than under Obama. Now I'll just try to figure out how to survive without growth. ![](http://www.kwikmed.com/images/ViagraBottle.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 14, 2012 17:29:33 GMT -5
LOL Marshall.
|
|
|
Post by prodigalone on Nov 14, 2012 17:44:23 GMT -5
I had more hope for growth under Romney/Ryan than under Obama. Now I'll just try to figure out how to survive without growth. disowning your loved ones and threatening them with guns should help you out in that regard. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 14, 2012 18:08:45 GMT -5
I had more hope for growth under Romney/Ryan than under Obama. Now I'll just try to figure out how to survive without growth. It was false hope, Bruce. Those guys had nothing. Your best hope at this point is a president who has run his last campaign and a Congress that really needs to show some game. This is it. Personally, I think "without growth" may be the answer for all of us. We have a world economic system dependent on perpetual growth, so when we haven't been able to get it, we've faked it or bought it. Bubbles. False value. Debt. Now here we are. Can perpetual growth possibly be sustainable? Uh...no. Perhaps we need a collapse to re-calibrate. We won't change the model any other way, but we may be able to save it for another generation or two if we have the will. Tim Well, Tim, the stock market and I seem to disagree with your assessment of the situation. May you live happily in the country you created. Those new drug laws should help. I'll just change course. Fortunately for me, you guys are on the hook for a lot of my yearly income between SS and my federal pension guarantee so I hope y'all keep working til you drop 'cause your chances of retiring just got a lot worse than they were. I made some mistakes in my calculations but I have a ways to fall before I hit bottom. I won't have any grandchildren but I feel bad for yours.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 14, 2012 18:53:09 GMT -5
Holy cow Bruce, you don't have to be so nasty about it. Your friends on the forum didn't engineer your financial situation by voting for Obama. Do try to gain some perspective. You're not dying and your family is not dead. You didn't get blown away by a hurricane. You have light and heat. Count your damned blessings why don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 14, 2012 19:25:39 GMT -5
I for one didn't think that Mutt would have done a bit better than Obama I just wanted him to win on the "throw the bums out" principle.
As a country we are past our expire by date. I'd guess that it will take less than 10 yrs (no matter which Demopublican is in charge) for checks from the feds to start bouncing or being paid in script that has no value. We are living now on the "too big to fail" principle. Sooner or later the rest of the world will realize that our money ain't worth shit.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 14, 2012 19:40:09 GMT -5
If you assume that the "it's gonna break up" people are right, how do you think it will come about.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 14, 2012 19:42:13 GMT -5
Holy cow Bruce, you don't have to be so nasty about it. Your friends on the forum didn't engineer your financial situation by voting for Obama. Do try to gain some perspective. You're not dying and your family is not dead. You didn't get blown away by a hurricane. You have light and heat. Count your damned blessings why don't you? Kate, from my perspective Democrats are just following through with the plan I saw laid out in 1970. It appears they have won. I had hoped their plan would have failed but they managed to "Educate" enough morons that it worked. Having converted to capitalism back then and did what I needed to do to support myself and my family in a pretty comfortable fashion eventually only to see it crushed by the Democrat plan, I will continue to blame them. I have few "Friends" here but it should be interesting to watch the fall. This election was stolen with lies upon lies and I will laugh as each lie is exposed over the coming months. The next recession, which has probably already started, will make the last 4 years look like good times. It will probably take Canada down with it, or you may go down with Europe even faster. Hang on. The ride is about to start.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Nov 14, 2012 19:50:45 GMT -5
OK, gang, I just Googled 'debt of world countries.' Per the CIA, these 10 have the least:
196 Nauru $ 33,300,000 2004 est. 197 Kiribati $ 10,000,000 1999 est. 198 Montserrat $ 8,900,000 1997 199 Anguilla $ 8,800,000 1998 200 Wallis and Futuna $ 3,670,000 2004 201 Niue $ 418,000 2002 est. 202 Brunei $ 0 2005 203 Palau $ 0 FY99/00 204 Macau $ 0 2010 205 Liechtenstein $ 0
So, if low national debt is your criteria for where you want to live, pack your bags, we're heading out.
I'm gonna need a GPS and some Rosetta Stone language software.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 20:06:35 GMT -5
Bruce. Why not stop calling Democrats and liberals morons and liars all the time? It just diminishes any contrary position you may wish to argue one day when the peculiar venting is over.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 14, 2012 20:26:18 GMT -5
I doubt that Canada is going down Bruce. We're in better shape than the US and Europe. Our bankers have always been on a shorter leash than in the US.
The Us isn't going down either for that matter. And if it does it won't be the fault of the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 14, 2012 20:59:06 GMT -5
I guess it can be comforting to blame all your problems on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 22:45:55 GMT -5
It was false hope, Bruce. Those guys had nothing. Your best hope at this point is a president who has run his last campaign and a Congress that really needs to show some game. This is it. Personally, I think "without growth" may be the answer for all of us. We have a world economic system dependent on perpetual growth, so when we haven't been able to get it, we've faked it or bought it. Bubbles. False value. Debt. Now here we are. Can perpetual growth possibly be sustainable? Uh...no. Perhaps we need a collapse to re-calibrate. We won't change the model any other way, but we may be able to save it for another generation or two if we have the will. Tim Well, Tim, the stock market and I seem to disagree with your assessment of the situation. May you live happily in the country you created. Those new drug laws should help. I'll just change course. Fortunately for me, you guys are on the hook for a lot of my yearly income between SS and my federal pension guarantee so I hope y'all keep working til you drop 'cause your chances of retiring just got a lot worse than they were. I made some mistakes in my calculations but I have a ways to fall before I hit bottom. I won't have any grandchildren but I feel bad for yours. Don't forget the Medicare, Bruce. We got you covered, bro. Welcome to the 47%. Tim
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 14, 2012 23:00:17 GMT -5
I think the frustration is that Bruce already belongs to the 53% that Obama apparently doesn't give a shit about. I know that feeling.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 23:17:55 GMT -5
The stock market gained 81% in Obama's first term, Bruce. He's not really responsible for that, but he's not responsible for the fact that you managed to lose money in that market either.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 14, 2012 23:23:04 GMT -5
I think the frustration is that Bruce already belongs to the 53% that Obama apparently doesn't give a shit about. I know that feeling. Oh I think you're dead wrong, Peter. Bruce is on Medicare and Social Security and, evidently, a pension that may need a federal guarantee. He's a big recipient of big entitlements. Smokin' and playin' golf on your dime and mine. The beating heart of American progressivism, baby. Tim
|
|