Time to call it quits?

The United States: Salvageable or Too Far Gone?

  • Our nation is strong, we will get through this together and work past our differences.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Our divisions are too deep, best to dissolve the Union peacefully while we still can.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Total voters
    18

TomJ

Member
It'll never happen. The fiscally irresponsible states (generally, but not exclusively blue) such as Illinois, where I live for now and California rely on the responsible states (generally, but not exclusively red) to support them. We are seeing people flee many blue states for either red or purple states. Californians are leaving in droves for Arizona and Texas. Houses in SE Wisconsin (a purple state) just over the Illinois border which are in decent condition and priced right sell in days as people flee Illinois for there. While this isn't a civil war, we are seeing a population shift as people are voting with their feet. I hope the people that left blue states leave their voting habits behind as well. Moving to a new state and then voting for the same policies that ruined the state you fled is moronic.
 

roscoe

Active member
It'll never happen. The fiscally irresponsible states (generally, but not exclusively blue) such as Illinois, where I live for now and California rely on the responsible states (generally, but not exclusively red) to support them. We are seeing people flee many blue states for either red or purple states. Californians are leaving in droves for Arizona and Texas. Houses in SE Wisconsin (a purple state) just over the Illinois border which are in decent condition and priced right sell in days as people flee Illinois for there. While this isn't a civil war, we are seeing a population shift as people are voting with their feet. I hope the people that left blue states leave their voting habits behind as well. Moving to a new state and then voting for the same policies that ruined the state you fled is moronic.

Incorrect. These states receive the most aid (almost all are red):

1615917244347.png
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
It may be true that those red states receive a larger percentage of their total annual budget from federal funds, but what about the actual cash amount received by the individual states?
A state that has a budget of a trillion and gets 30% from the feds is getting a lot more than a state that has a billion dollar budget and gets 40% from the fed... .
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
It may be true that those red states receive a larger percentage of their total annual budget from federal funds, but what about the actual cash amount received by the individual states?
A state that has a budget of a trillion and gets 30% from the feds is getting a lot more than a state that has a billion dollar budget and gets 40% from the fed... .
I guess it could be worked out per capita too. Or compared to the total federal tax paid by each State, its resident companies and individual citizens.

I'm not arguing with you. Just brainstorming.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
IWe are seeing people flee many blue states for either red or purple states. ... Houses in SE Wisconsin (a purple state) just over the Illinois border which are in decent condition and priced right sell in days as people flee Illinois for there. .... I hope the people that left blue states leave their voting habits behind as well. Moving to a new state and then voting for the same policies that ruined the state you fled is moronic.
They're just making SE Wisconsin even more purple.
Carve out Madison, Milwaukee, Racine and (maybe) Janesville and Wisconsin would be solid red.

I think the counties in Oregon that want to secede and join with Idaho have got the right idea. People shouldn't have to move to another state to be free. Move the state to the people.

Split off Cook County from Illinois, split off Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha from Wisconsin, and graft those fungus-colored political entities into the new state of Midwest Mold. Lori Lightfoot for Governor. No need to hold an election, just hook up those Dominion machines to the internet and plug 'em in to the AC outlets.
 

roscoe

Active member
It may be true that those red states receive a larger percentage of their total annual budget from federal funds, but what about the actual cash amount received by the individual states?
A state that has a budget of a trillion and gets 30% from the feds is getting a lot more than a state that has a billion dollar budget and gets 40% from the fed... .

What? How else could you compare Vermont to California? Raw numbers would be useless. Scaling for budget roughly controls for population.

Anyway, let's see which states contribute the most to the budget (per capita), and which draw the most:
(hint - red contributes more, greener receives the most):
source: https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html
1615934023734.png
 

roscoe

Active member
It'll never happen. The fiscally irresponsible states (generally, but not exclusively blue) such as Illinois, where I live for now and California rely on the responsible states (generally, but not exclusively red) to support them. We are seeing people flee many blue states for either red or purple states. Californians are leaving in droves for Arizona and Texas. Houses in SE Wisconsin (a purple state) just over the Illinois border which are in decent condition and priced right sell in days as people flee Illinois for there. While this isn't a civil war, we are seeing a population shift as people are voting with their feet. I hope the people that left blue states leave their voting habits behind as well. Moving to a new state and then voting for the same policies that ruined the state you fled is moronic.

I don't know where people get the idea that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible. Over the last 40 years, the Federal deficit has always risen under Republicans and fallen under Democrats (data: US Treasury).
1615935115208.png


And red states get more federal assistance than blue states. Perhaps the biggest misconception in politics is that Republicans are good with the budget. They are opposed to taxes on the rich, and want to cut education funding, sure, but that is a different thing.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Some economists would equate economic stimulation by both government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy with economic distortion. Stimulation works in the short term but artificial distortions tend to balance themselves out in the long term. Additional stimulation just creates more distortion.

In other words: if you think the "great recession" was bad, I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet.
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
In other words: if you think the "great recession" was bad, I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet.
I'm not sure anyone was claiming it was bad. I certainly wasn't. I was just explaining why the national debt increased so much under Obama. Personally, I barely noticed the "great recession".
 

roscoe

Active member
Some economists would equate economic stimulation by both government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy with economic distortion. Stimulation works in the short term but artificial distortions tend to balance themselves out in the long term. Additional stimulation just creates more distortion.

In other words: if you think the "great recession" was bad, I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet.

This is a prediction that some have made for decades, ever since we went off the gold standard. And yet, the economy keeps growing.
 

roscoe

Active member
You're forgetting that Obama tripled the national debt.

Check your numbers, junior. It increased as much under Bush 2 (see where that steep curve starts?). The debt also tripled under Reagan. But at least Obama was getting us out of a major recession. And notice that the debt started to flatten under Obama, once he got us out of Bush's mess.

Maybe this is a case of 'Republican math'.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Personally, I barely noticed the "great recession".
Recessions have greatly variable adverse effects upon different individuals with different economic circumstances. Perhaps you and I have the resources to remain relatively comfortable during bad economic times but most people do not, and they will most certainly suffer. Because my circumstances aren't dire gives me no just cause to make light of the same situations that result in circumstances that are dire for others.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Active member
Recessions have greatly variable adverse effects upon different individuals with different economic circumstances. Perhaps you and I have the resources to remain relatively comfortable during bad economic times but most people do not, and they will most certainly suffer. Because my circumstances aren't dire gives me no just cause to make light of the same situations that result in circumstances that are dire for others.

Agreed. The Great Recession was serious, and had significant implications on a lot of people. As in 1929, I know of several suicides, just as a start.
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
Recessions have greatly variable adverse effects upon different individuals with different economic circumstances. Perhaps you and I have the resources to remain relatively comfortable during bad economic times but most people do not, and they will most certainly suffer. Because my circumstances aren't dire gives me no just cause to make light of the same situations that result in circumstances that are dire for others.
So here you are, admitting that "the great recession" brought hardship and caused financial suffering to people without the means or perhaps professions that allowed them to ride it out in a reasonable level of comfort. And of course, I agree with what you're saying. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I cannot possibly know what level of discomfort I may have had to ensure without the benefits of the government stimulus spending. After all, such spending bolstered the economy and helped secure the society it is based on. We are all of course a part of both that society and its economy.

So what was your original point? Mine was that the government spending during the Obama administration was largely based on mitigating the effects of that recession.
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
The fun thing about this board is that nobody has to stay on the original point. Don't destroy it.
I have no objection to that. I simply don't understand what your original point was. And to make some vague suggestion about the great recession not being bad in comparison to.... what exactly?... didn't make much sense.

If you want to converse about how continued stimulus spending and increasing the national debt will eventually bite us in the butt, we can certainly discuss it. Or not. We could also talk about how massive and increasing personal debt is fueling luxury consumer spending in the US, and about how that's a problem. And discuss how the two compare and contrast.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
If you want to converse about how continued stimulus spending and increasing the national debt will eventually bite us in the butt, we can certainly discuss it. Or not. We could also talk about how massive and increasing personal debt is fueling luxury consumer spending in the US, and about how that's a problem. And discuss how the two compare and contrast.
They are two sides of the same coin, or two sides of two coins, actually:

1) Coin #1: debt held as an asset on balance sheets.
2) Coin #2: a fiat currency as the medium of financial exchange.

1) Side #1: private finances.
2) Side #2: public finances.

Debt held as an asset has value only insofar as debt service payments can be made and the holder has a belief in and confidence that the debt will either be repaid in full or can be called in exchange for some asset that has instrinsic market value. Futher, an asset that has a market, period. You lose any of those dependencies: debt service, confidence, belief, underlying asset market, and the debt as an asset goes to zero value and the balance sheet suddenly shows insolvency.

Fiat currency has no instrinsic value and has value only insofar as both parties using it to transact have faith and belief that it represents the fair value of the transaction and retains that value long enough to be useful for the next transaction. If parties have plenty of disposable currency they're willing to part with more to effect a transaction, making the unitary value in terms of the item or service exchanged worth less, or from another viewpoint, a minute erosion of their belief in and confidence about the enduring value of the currency used. That erosion accumulates.

You probably know all the economic mechanics and principals involved; I didn't really need to explain it - I just wanted to state it in terms about what both coins are based on: CONFIDENCE and BELIEF - and those are very fragile supports upon which economic systems depend and can disappear pretty damn fast, and have done so, and neither government nor central bank policies and actions are doing much to bolster them.
 
Top