(Texas and Alaska sure would be a big chunk of land!) Originally Posted by enduranceUh, Alaska takes in $2 Federal dollars for every one it pays in taxes and about 1/3rd of all jobs are government employees in Alaska. What makes you think they would be stupid enough to allow that to end? So what makes you think Texans would be happy to just send the Alaskans about $4Billion each year so they can keep up their standard of living? Duh.
No federal troops would ever be sent in, because if, and it's a very big if, Texas ever did attempt secession, it would be done peacably, through the courts. And forget years; it would take at least a decade... Originally Posted by Poet LaureateTo do this in a non-violent way, so far as I can tell, would require unprecedented legislation, probably a constitutional amendment.
It is complete and utter stupidity and ignorance.
...
Uh, Alaska takes in $2 Federal dollars for every one it pays in taxes and about 1/3rd of all jobs are government employees in Alaska. What makes you think they would be stupid enough to allow that to end? So what makes you think Texans would be happy to just send the Alaskans about $4Billion each year so they can keep up their standard of living? Duh.
Just the transaction costs of currency conversion alone would be like a big additional tax on Texans. Can't wait to pay that! Originally Posted by austxjr
I think your imagination on just how bad the situation will be getting for the United States going forward is pretty limited. Originally Posted by enduranceNo, I could fully imagine what would happen if Romney had won. Larger government, lower taxes for the 1% or maybe the 5%. An extra $2 Trillion unasked for dollars spent on the military. Ballooning deficits and national debt again (remember Dem deficits and debt are bad, but Republicans have never seen one of their own that they had a problem with). Out of control spending on the healthcare sector, no regulation for Wall St., the energy industry or chemicals and probably at least one war with boots on the ground in Syria or Iran. At a minimum.
This is a huge part of the problem - unsustainable subsidization and massive government payrolls. Originally Posted by enduranceI tend to agree somewhat that there is a lot of unnecessary corporate subsidization and welfare. At least $300 Billion a year for DoD alone. It may not be unsustainable, but it is unwise.
Basing your game theory on the status quo will be like the people in Ohio who voted for Obama now getting their food stamps cut. Originally Posted by enduranceThat makes no sense because I don't have any game theory and don't base anything on the status quo. I base projections on historical trends as much as makes sense and the only thing I DO know is that trends do not continue for ever.
We'll revisit this when the rigged interest rates inevitably rise. Originally Posted by enduranceInterest rates are not "rigged' that is how a fiat monetary system works. When the sovereign creates money the sovereign also can set the interest rates and doesn't actually need to tax, borrow or issue bonds to finance government spending nor does the sovereign need rating agencies because the sovereign money issuer can always pay its debts as long as the people have the political will to do so. The only two big risks are inflation and unemployment. That is just how it works with fiat money from a structural and accounting perspective. Look it up.
Most people have been lulled into complacence by "just the right balance" of corruption and selling off our intangibles as a country. Originally Posted by enduranceThat makes no sense at all since what numbskull would by our "intangibles" since they are by definition, "intangible"? How do you balance corruption with "intangibles"? Using an imaginary scale?
No, I could fully imagine what would happen if Romney had won. ... Originally Posted by austxjrAnd this is part of the limited imagination that I'm talking about.
I tend to agree somewhat that there is a lot of unnecessary corporate subsidization and welfare. At least $300 Billion a year for DoD alone. It may not be unsustainable, but it is unwise.Not true. Why are you using 2009 data?
Government payrolls, federal, have grown at the slowest rate of any president since Johnson - http://www.newsneconomics.com/2010/0...across-us.html
Remember, we are a growing country too and so government payroll tends to grow with the population. State and local government payrolls have shrunk quite a bit which means overall government payrolls in the U.S. have also shrunk.
Originally Posted by austxjr
That makes no sense because I don't have any game theory and don't base anything on the status quo. I base projections on historical trends as much as makes sense and the only thing I DO know is that trends do not continue for ever. Originally Posted by austxjrYou do have a game theory, you just don't understand what it is. Since you base projections on historical trends, the status quo figures into your projection. And you are basically agreeing that things are unsustainable.
Interest rates are not "rigged' that is how a fiat monetary system works. When the sovereign creates money the sovereign also can set the interest rates and doesn't actually need to tax, borrow or issue bonds to finance government spending nor does the sovereign need rating agencies because the sovereign money issuer can always pay its debts as long as the people have the political will to do so. The only two big risks are inflation and unemployment. That is just how it works with fiat money from a structural and accounting perspective. Look it up. Originally Posted by austxjrInterest rate swap derivatives. Look it up.
That makes no sense at all since what numbskull would by our "intangibles" since they are by definition, "intangible"? How do you balance corruption with "intangibles"? Using an imaginary scale? Originally Posted by austxjrWow, just wow. I'm expecting the "I'm rubber, you're glue" coming soon. And you go around calling others ignorant...