TEXAS SECESSION- what are your thoughts?

Like I said there are definitely folks that need them and that includes medicare, medicaid, but they can also be abused. We need to reduce or eliminate fraud and give it to only those that need it. I will say one thing. Because of the recession, perhaps, giving out food stamps was a good thing to reduce crime or soup lines. But Obama has too start moving the economy forward, long-term. We'll see.

I come from a military family. My family has served this country from WW 2 to Vietnam to both gulf wars. Originally Posted by kingorpawn

Wow. Funny how people can actually agree on a few things, once they start talking about specifics.

One disagreement. Obama doesn't have the power to move the economy forward on his own. Especially when the GOP has been cock-blocking him at every step, just to keep him from being a two-term president.

But maybe now, thanks to a little humility from the ass-kicking they just took, the GOP will see how the Tea Party is more of a liability than an asset. And maybe we'll see some movement past the fiscal cliff and toward immigration reform.

I also agree with you that we need to do more to lift disadvantaged people out of poverty, and not just with hand-outs, but with education and opportunity.

We probably won't get instant gratification, because it's a problem that's been festering for a long time. But we have to try. It's the right thing to do, and the whole world is watching.

Wow. Funny how people can actually agree on a few things, once they start talking about specifics.

One disagreement. Obama doesn't have the power to move the economy forward on his own. Especially when the GOP has been cock-blocking him at every step, just to keep him from being a two-term president.

But maybe now, thanks to a little humility from the ass-kicking they just took, the GOP will see how the Tea Party is more of a liability than an asset. And maybe we'll see some movement past the fiscal cliff and toward immigration reform.

I also agree with you that we need to do more to lift disadvantaged people out of poverty, and not just with hand-outs, but with education and opportunity.

We probably won't get instant gratification, because it's a problem that's been festering for a long time. But we have to try. It's the right thing to do, and the whole world is watching. Originally Posted by ozmosys

The fact is that Obama is the President whether people like it or not and it is true presidents don't have a lot of power with the economy, but he can with a lot of help create the environment to help businesses prosper.
He can't do a lot without a strong economy and yes the rest of the world is waiting for the US to lead. One problem, I had with Obama was that he spent his first 1.5 yrs promoting Obama-care rather than focusing on the economy which is the key to getting other things done. I was surprised by that. We'll see. If he doesn't I think the democratic party will be in worse shape then the GOP in 4 yrs.

He can't do a lot without a strong economy and yes the rest of the world is waiting for the US to lead. One problem, I had with Obama was that he spent his first 1.5 yrs promoting Obama-care rather than focusing on the economy which is the key to getting other things done. Originally Posted by kingorpawn

The economy is driven by people spending money. Not an easy thing to do when they go bankrupt from medical emergencies. Or when they die because the insurance companies won't pay claims due to pre-existing conditions. Kind of hard to contribute to the economy when you're dead.

Or when people go to emergency rooms for routine issues, and everyone else has to pay 10 times what it would have cost with even half-assed preventive care.

I think we should have talked about single-payer, because it can be more cost-effective. The devil is in the details. But it was completely off the table because of the greed and influence of insurance companies, with their corporate jets and executive bonuses.

Practically every other developed economy has universal health care, except for the U.S. And it puts American business at a disadvantage competitively, because they have to absorb a lot of those costs. We pay far more per capita for health care than other economies, and with far less to show for it.

Not to say that those other developed economies aren't having problems with cost containment. That's a real issue.

But I've got to give Obama credit for dragging us kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Not the 21st, mind you, the 20th. And with pretty much the same plan that Republicans advocated as a counter-proposal to Hillary-care. Pretty much the same one that Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.

This is not a can that we could continue to kick down the road indefinitely. And we've been slackers for way too long.

The economy is driven by people spending money. Not an easy thing to do when they go bankrupt from medical emergencies. Or when they die because the insurance companies won't pay claims due to pre-existing conditions. Kind of hard to contribute to the economy when you're dead.

Or when people go to emergency rooms for routine issues, and everyone else has to pay 10 times what it would have cost with even half-assed preventive care.

I think we should have talked about single-payer, because it can be more cost-effective. The devil is in the details. But it was completely off the table because of the greed and influence of insurance companies, with their corporate jets and executive bonuses.

Practically every other developed economy has universal health care, except for the U.S. And it puts American business at a disadvantage competitively, because they have to absorb a lot of those costs. We pay far more per capita for health care than other economies, and with far less to show for it.

Not to say that those other developed economies aren't having problems with cost containment. That's a real issue.

But I've got to give Obama credit for dragging us kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Not the 21st, mind you, the 20th. And with pretty much the same plan that Republicans advocated as a counter-proposal to Hillary-care. Pretty much the same one that Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.

This is not a can that we could continue to kick down the road indefinitely. And we've been slackers for way too long. Originally Posted by ozmosys

That is partly true the economy is driven when people spend money, but people are more reluctant to spend money in a bad economy. Secondly, businesses layoff or don't hire in bad economies. So like I said the President can create an environment to help businesses prosper then they will hire and people will have more money to spend or more willing to spend.

I'm not going to totally disagree with Obama-care being a republican idea especially the individual mandate which I do not agree with. I have a friend that has looked at everything Obama did in his first 4 yrs and his opinion Obama acted more like a moderate republican. He mentioned to me a bunch of things Obama did that I did not know about. He's a political scientist.

And last, I don't disagree that our health care cost are skyrocketing and our health care system like everything else can be improved, but whether Obama-care solves all those issues only time will tell.

sundog - some comments, most of which are minor points - i think we agree in general... (and some of your arguments were vs things I never said, so not sure what to say about that :-) )

I'm very much aware that TARP was during Bush's term and the role Paulson played. Geithner was right there in the mix too at the nyfed. Remember this, TARP was a bridge loan until all the many other programs got put in place. Repayment of that and bragging about minimizing losses is all a smoke screen, you have to look at all the programs (TGLP, etc) Obama didn't really do anything in the way of reform there - total PR.

The repeal of Glass Steagall was just one of the steps in making sure that the too big to fails would be made whole. Notice now that all of those huge banks are now even bigger.

It is tough to be critical of Greenspan and not of Bernanke - his policies are just more extreme versions. Push printed money (in the form of credit and collateral at made up prices) through the major banks and see what sticks. Many markets have been destroyed from this give money to the banks to save them at all costs and we'll see the effects of this as each QE has less effect and is more destructive.

Trying to solve global population at the same time as fraud doesn't make sense to me and almost guarantees we won't make progress on the simple things we could do - I guess we'll agree to disagree on that one.

I will say this though, some of the things you are claiming are over population are actually symptoms of weakening of the world's reserve currency. e.g. natural resource prices going up.

Part of the secessionists frustration I think is seeing that people on both parties, if they haven't made progress at this point, are not going to - and members of their party go along with it and are part of the problem. We are still diverging, not converging. There are not many in DC that represent the good of the country and the pillaging of the country has become so blatant that it's hard to not see a major reset as necessary. Self repair is fading fast as a hope.

Endurance, you seem to forget that the original TARP bailout was a Bush deal, jammed through by Henry Paulson (Goldman - Sachs, CSX) because he had gotten word of the massive disaster caused mostly by the dismantling of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall served us well for many decades because it limited the leverage exposure in the marketplace. Then some clever folks who deal with other people's money invented the derivatives market, Glass-Steagall was burned on the floor of the exchange, and the crooks were off to the races. After the 2008 election the Obama team put limits and requirements on the TARP money, and at least that much of it had accountability and was paid back. As far as Geithner is concerned I've never been thrilled with him. Volker was a calming voice in a turbulent moment. The real culprit was Greenspan, and he's even admitted as much. Oh, and don't forget Mister Unlimited Economic Growth - Milton Friedman. Unlimited growth in the human body is called cancer. Sustainability is what we should be after, and that comes with self-discipline and self-sufficiency. Globalization makes us internationally dependent and serves only the bankers and the uber-rich. I've never been a fan. I am a fan, however, of helping others to become self-sufficient in micro-economies in the realm of fuel, energy and food, and I think there is an answer there, but we can't do that at the end of a gun barrel.

I couldn't agree with you more that blame resides on both sides of the aisle, but the answer is in accountability, not in term limits, or in scrapping the whole shebang. Proper exercise of accountability i.e., prosecution of the guilty (re: Randy Cunniningham and others like him) is a form of term limits in itself. Too often governing bodies drape themselves with immunity even before they act.

As far as Freddie and Fannie are concerned, those institutions bought toxic mortgages that were certified AAA by S&P, Moody's, et al. They don't write mortgages. Their incompetence resided in their failure to perform an exacting due diligence. Why didn't they do that? Well, possibly because the "trusted and respected" ratings entities had given their blessings. Freddie and Fannie weren't the only ones fooled...Lehman is gone, Merrill-Lynch got sucked up by BOA, Countrywide is toast, and the perpetrators are living abroad with their ill-gotten gains.

I welcome Elizabeth Warren into the fray. I agree that the Fed is "owned" by the banks. I agree that having an independent manager of our currency is a good idea (Elizabeth Warren again), but to ignore overpopulation as a root cause for this is to ignore the human nature that accompanies dangerous times such as these. Rats in a maze with limited food comes to mind. India and China are building interstate highway systems and cars. Gasoline prices are going up, up and away. Petroleum resources, vital to the food supply more than even transportation because of their use in fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and ag fuels are dwindling, no matter how much we frack (which brings me to water use in fracking, but then this tome could go on forever...). What I'm trying to say is that greed as a means of protecting yourself from the is a pretty natural response to the problems we face, which is why we need controls and regulations to limit that greed.

Endurance, we are on the same page, and I have actually been on that path since my return from Vietnam, and will continue to be an advocate and entrepreneur in that field until I expire and they make me into a big pot of green chile. It's not wise to waste food, even though I might be a little old and tough.

Oh, one more thing - kingorpawn, judging by the retro argument you keep spouting I'm guessing you are of the Christian persuasion. If so, what do you have against social justice? Your hair is still on fire, but maybe you don't have indoor plumbing. In that case I don't blame you for sticking your head in there. Originally Posted by sundog

Endurance, we could have a very stimulating discussion. Lots of real information here. I still contend that we are in a resource war scenario, and that the weakness or strength of monetary policy has nothing to do with children starving around the world. Piracy in the Indian Ocean is a direct result of population overshoot.

Sorry about the rant about things you didn't say..I get started sometimes and lose it!

I hold to the historic interpretation of what population on this planet 'probably' should be...that is, the balanced population of the pre-industrial revolution that existed before the industrial revolution (slight uptick in population) and the discovery of and chemistry of petroleum. That number is around 1.5 - 2B souls. Even in the use of coal and oil we are still a solar-powered planet, as both of those substances were produced by some type of sunshine in the carbon cycle. The problem is that we have used (and profited from) half of 200 million years of stored sunlight in a mere 150 years, and the benefits of that easily-obtained energy has created a temporary (I mean that) excess of food that has allowed population to expand. Population overshoot. With more than 3 times the natural carrying capacity of the planet we are beginning to see the results of that folly.

Money and all of its trappings, like religion, is all a creation of man. It is the veneer on which we live. Monetary policy is merely one of those variables. None of it will forestay the disaster that is already occurring in the large part of the world that still doesn't have electricity or clean water. The only answer is a reduced population, and since I don't even believe in God I'm not going to suggest that anyone assume that role. Nature will do well enough, and won't be picky, either.

I look forward to a continuation of this discussion.

Sorry, kingorpawn, but that really doesn't fly. You speak of entitlements - I work with people in the energy industry who say they'll move off-shore if they have to give up their billions in tax "treatments". The programs I see are Medicare, which was a medical insurance plan that workers paid premiums to, and Social Security, which was a pension plan that employees paid in to. That got robbed by clever politicians who used those guaranteed premiums to secure new debt. (Reagan Admin)

Higher taxes wreck the economy? How is it that the best economic growth our country ever experienced was when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%? Even in Clinton's administration, when we balanced the budget and created a surplus, by the way, cap gains were much higher than they are now, and the economy thrived, we produced jobs, and all was good. Warren Buffett said today on Morning Joe that if his money stash was threatened by higher taxes he would do what he has always done - invest!

As far as Obama thinking you are a racist, I think you're wrong. The guy is color-blind, sexual-orientation blind and gender-blind. I live down the street from a bar that was a KKK meeting-place from the time the new owners bought it (around the '08 election) until they lost their asses recently. I quit going there a long time ago. I don't tolerate intolerance, lol. As far as the Dems being 50's and 60's...you need to explain that. I sure don't see it...in so many ways.

Wow this thread really took off!

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Pot calling the kettle black .

Secede now. Within 20 years the US will be like Greece. Within 50 years it will be like Mexico - a true 3rd world country. For those of you that deisagree, please explain what part of "global economy" you don't understand. Texas has the 15th largest economy in the world. If we secede now we'll be top 5 within 10 years. Businesses will fight to move here to get away from the absurd taxation in the US, obamanomics, obamacare, obamashit, obamafuckups, and the rest of his socialist compadres in Washington. The world needs a leader, and a beacon of freedom. It might as well be Texas.

Secede now. Within 20 years the US will be like Greece. Within 50 years it will be like Mexico - a true 3rd world country. For those of you that deisagree, please explain what part of "global economy" you don't understand. Texas has the 15th largest economy in the world. If we secede now we'll be top 5 within 10 years. Businesses will fight to move here to get away from the absurd taxation in the US, obamanomics, obamacare, obamashit, obamafuckups, and the rest of his socialist compadres in Washington. The world needs a leader, and a beacon of freedom. It might as well be Texas. Originally Posted by ThrillBill88

I totally agree with everything Bill88 said. i say 40 yrs like Mexico. We'll have 100 Million hispanics with probably less than 20 million educated. Not to mention African-Americans who are not progressing in society. Women are graduating from college at a higher percentage than men with the majority being Caucasian women. It's great for college guys having a wide selection of chicks in college, but long-term it's bad for the country. Minorities are growing , but they are still not prepared to compete at a global scale. Those demographics that voted for Obama have the future of the country in their hands. I could go on and on.

Sorry, kingorpawn, but that really doesn't fly. You speak of entitlements - I work with people in the energy industry who say they'll move off-shore if they have to give up their billions in tax "treatments". The programs I see are Medicare, which was a medical insurance plan that workers paid premiums to, and Social Security, which was a pension plan that employees paid in to. That got robbed by clever politicians who used those guaranteed premiums to secure new debt. (Reagan Admin)

Higher taxes wreck the economy? How is it that the best economic growth our country ever experienced was when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%? Even in Clinton's administration, when we balanced the budget and created a surplus, by the way, cap gains were much higher than they are now, and the economy thrived, we produced jobs, and all was good. Warren Buffett said today on Morning Joe that if his money stash was threatened by higher taxes he would do what he has always done - invest!

As far as Obama thinking you are a racist, I think you're wrong. The guy is color-blind, sexual-orientation blind and gender-blind. I live down the street from a bar that was a KKK meeting-place from the time the new owners bought it (around the '08 election) until they lost their asses recently. I quit going there a long time ago. I don't tolerate intolerance, lol. As far as the Dems being 50's and 60's...you need to explain that. I sure don't see it...in so many ways. Originally Posted by sundog

Sundog, I have no idea which part of what I said you are talking about, but I'll say that the Clinton economy was a fluke. It crashed in 2000.

I never said Obama was calling someone like me racist, but he uses being half-black as leverage and calls people racist when it benefits him. I said people I know refer to me as being racist because I criticize Obama's policies or ideology. And about Demo's being 50's and 60's, a lot of demo's including Obama's ideology is outdated. They live in the past. Obama's social justice is the ideology of his mother and father.

Obama-care is Obama going after the insurance companies because of what happen with his mother. His refusal to condemn Muslim extremist is related to his Muslim roots. Although, I don't consider him a Muslim. It's a different world and Obama is stuck in the past.

However, I'm hoping that he will wake up and come back to the real world. Besides all that, I personally like the guy. I find him entertaining. I just don't think he should be President because of the way he thinks. I could go on and on.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a response to a very real problem - that of some 50 million Americans not having any access to health care. My wife and I would be up the creek if pre-exisiting conditions and caps on coverage were allowed to continue

Sorry, hit the wrong button. The health care industry (read Blue Cross-Blue Shield) did not become a 'for profit' industry until the Nixon Administration, at which time about 30% of our health insurance premium got redirected to shareholders and executives. Not only did the consumer get shafted, but doctors, nurses and hospitals as well. If pursuing something that makes the quality of life better for a group that large counts as retro social justice, then I'm all for it. The care people have to get at the emergency room is care of last resort, extremely expensive, and comes out of my pocket in the long run. Take that 30% out of the shareholders pockets and give it back to the doctors and hospitals and I guarantee we'd have a much healthier nation.

Your comments in the previous post in response to ThrillBill's call for secession smacks of racism on its face. When you mention Hispanics, African-Americans and young, college educated white women in the same post is that not racist and misogynist? How is having more college-educated women bad for the country in the long run? Why are blacks not progressing in society, which blacks are you talking about? 100 million Hispanics?

Secession will never occur, and cannot occur according to the Constitution. Texas can divide itself into 5 separate states (what a stir that would cause), but secession is out - we fought a war over secession once, remember? If you want to carry it to the next level and make it in to an armed revolt, be my guest. My suggestion is that you either make peace with the way things are becoming or find another country that suits your idea of limited (or no) government. I would suggest Somalia.

I look at the Clinton Admin's budget successes as the result of lots of hard bipartisan work, something that is missing in the US House. As far as the economy crashing in 2000, the actual second quarter that showed negative growth was the second quarter of 2001, not 2000. If the Clinton success was a fluke then I suppose the Bush catastrophe was a fluke, too. Except, perhaps for leaving business unfinished in Afghanistan while changing gears to invade Iraq, and quite unnecessarily, I might add. On the credit card, too.

You and ThrillBill need to circle the wagons - but take a fire extinguisher with you...your hair is still on fire.

Sorry, hit the wrong button. The health care industry (read Blue Cross-Blue Shield) did not become a 'for profit' industry until the Nixon Administration, at which time about 30% of our health insurance premium got redirected to shareholders and executives. Not only did the consumer get shafted, but doctors, nurses and hospitals as well. If pursuing something that makes the quality of life better for a group that large counts as retro social justice, then I'm all for it. The care people have to get at the emergency room is care of last resort, extremely expensive, and comes out of my pocket in the long run. Take that 30% out of the shareholders pockets and give it back to the doctors and hospitals and I guarantee we'd have a much healthier nation.

Your comments in the previous post in response to ThrillBill's call for secession smacks of racism on its face. When you mention Hispanics, African-Americans and young, college educated white women in the same post is that not racist and misogynist? How is having more college-educated women bad for the country in the long run? Why are blacks not progressing in society, which blacks are you talking about? 100 million Hispanics?

Secession will never occur, and cannot occur according to the Constitution. Texas can divide itself into 5 separate states (what a stir that would cause), but secession is out - we fought a war over secession once, remember? If you want to carry it to the next level and make it in to an armed revolt, be my guest. My suggestion is that you either make peace with the way things are becoming or find another country that suits your idea of limited (or no) government. I would suggest Somalia.

I look at the Clinton Admin's budget successes as the result of lots of hard bipartisan work, something that is missing in the US House. As far as the economy crashing in 2000, the actual second quarter that showed negative growth was the second quarter of 2001, not 2000. If the Clinton success was a fluke then I suppose the Bush catastrophe was a fluke, too. Except, perhaps for leaving business unfinished in Afghanistan while changing gears to invade Iraq, and quite unnecessarily, I might add. On the credit card, too.

You and ThrillBill need to circle the wagons - but take a fire extinguisher with you...your hair is still on fire. Originally Posted by sundog

Sundog, you keep misinterpreting everything I say and you don't get your facts straight. Like I never said having more educated women was bad for the country. I'm Spanish and I date mostly white educated women. I said that having only educated white women with everyone else falling behind is not good for the country. What I meant is that you need to have men of all races and women of all races rise up to the same level of education if the country is going to progress and compete at a global scale.

The stats are saying that in 30-40 yrs there will be 100 million hispanics. The highest unemployment rate is with young black men. black women have the higest level of unmarried mothers. They are not progressing in society. They a lot of social problems. Look around and do a little research and you'll see the problems in the black communities. Having so many unmarried black mothers increases the likelihood of their children having more emotional problems which leads to other issues like crime, drugs, dropping out of school, etc. I said the clinton economy started to crash in 2000. I agree with everything you said about Bush and his wars.

I'm not racist since I have friends from all over the world. As for Obama-care, I never said everything about it was bad. There are some good things in it, but they are also a lot of things bad about it. I'm not going to detail everything that's bad or good about it here. Do your research.