So now what?

[Tallpine]

Does anyone really believe the Fed will allow states to separate themselves in some fashion, even if it is only for a limited autonomy?

Did anyone really believe the USSR would break up? 

[Inor]

I think maybe I take a different meaning for the term "Czar" than wiki and Balog do.

Let's just look at this way...  From the book "A Patriot's History of the United States", which is an outstanding book by the way, when JFK came into office, the White House staff consisted of 23 people.  By 1971 it had grown to 5395!  I was not able to find what it is at now, but I would be hard pressed to believe it has shrunk.  That does not include over 2 million people that work for agencies directly controlled by the President.  The healthcare bill adds more than 32 thousand people to the IRS alone. 

Even if we had another Calvin Coolidge waiting in the wings, does anybody still believe this government could be shrunk significantly from the top?

[Jamisjockey]

I'll be impressed when the red states refuse all federal money over what they personally give in taxes.

That would be a great way to make a point, and actually do something besides blow hot air.

This.  When the funds are held over state's heads for compliance, they generally cave on almost every issue. 

[Jamisjockey]

We unite and tell the Federal government that in the States of X, Y, and Z we demand the right to establish our own rules, by the consent of the governed there, while still keeping allegiance, for collective security, with a national state.  We do this peacefully, with the idea that "diversity," so honored now, must indeed be given its real chance to flower.  Those parts of America that want socialism should have it, but those who do not should not be burdened financially with it.  Let the experiment in diversity bloom with a thousand points of light.

That'll be the day.  The fed.gov has repeatedly used force against its own citizens when special treatment or cessation is threatened. 

[makattak]

It's funny, my guess is it will be like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as well!

In that, if we don't fix them, they will kill our country. All this did was shorten the time horizon before collapse.

YAY WEIMAR!

(Yes, I'm quoting myself to post this)

http://cafehayek.com/2010/03/a-few-thoughts-on-the-health-care-legislation.html

I’m sorry it passed, but there are many consolations. The current system of health care—a mish-mash of top-down regulation and private attempts to respond to it—is bankrupt, both intellectually and financially. It is a nominally “private” system but the hand of government is the dog, not even the tail that wags the dog. Given the role of medicare reimbursment, and the tax-advantaging of generous private plans, there is very little room left for the invisible hand. The simple way to say it is that too little health care is currently paid for out of pocket. The patient is not the customer. And the current system is broke. The generosity of the system cannot be maintained int he face of the aging of the population. So it’s not like the status quo is so great...

The existing legislative promises of Medicare and Social Security are a train wreck that cannot be avoided without radical change. Expanding coverage just brings the train wreck closer. It’s a nice idea but it is unaffordable. We have taken a step closer to Greece. We have taken a step closer to national bankruptcy. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry about that part.

[longeyes]

Who said they wouldn't resort to using force against secessionists?  That's to be expected from "control freaks," no?  But that's not the end of the story either, is it?  If and when the Feds starting shooting ordinary Americans, for whatever reason, that's the day a lot of things change forever.

[Strings]

I'm going to make a prediction...

Might not be due to Healthcare. But another push or two, especially soon, and you're going to start hearing about policritters injured and killed. At which point, I would bet on either full-blown martial law, or at least all the "anti-terror" tools resently created being used wholesale against American citizens.

And honestly, I'm begining to wonder if that isn't the intent...

[makattak]

Alright, this isn't going to cause a collapse soon.

All we did was move the day of reckoning closer. I'm betting 10 years closer.

However, every other major country knows we can't be spending this much money. It may be they expect that we will reign things back in.

If so, the ONLY reason we are still able to sell bonds is that the purchasers expect the Republicans will take over in November and stop this reckless course.

We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.

We're in dangerous territory, though. The United States is no longer the safe bet. Obama wanted us to be "just another country" and he's at least succeeded in that.

Here's the thing though. We have this year to fix things. If the level of spending isn't SIGNIFICANTLY cut back next year, our bond rating will fall, our interest rates will increase and we will have to spend large amounts of money on simply debt payments.

Should that happen... Weimerica.

[Nick1911]

We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.

On what logic and facts do you base this statement upon?  Sure, repeal is technically possible.  Pragmatically, I don't see any evidence to suggest we (Americans) ever will.

Also, there was an article on drudgereport about the US losing it's AAA rating: link

[longeyes]

Maybe you can't repeal it, but you can sure as hell say you aren't interested in obeying "alien" law.

Is martial law the real intent?  That could very well be, but from what I've seen of our operations abroad I think imposing military control on a nation of 300-plus million people would be, well, more than challenging.

If Obama can't ignite the economy--and how can he with his policies?--he is going to hit the wall when he tries to get through the double economic whammy of "cap and trade" and an illegal alien amnesty.  

Anger isn't what will take down Obama; clarity and frankness will.  He has yet to be called out for who and what he is by a critical mass of Americans, but that day is fast approaching.

[MicroBalrog]

Pragmatically, I don't see any evidence to suggest we (Americans) ever will.

Any kind of belief that 'the welfare state is forever' is nothing but a psychological weapon for the leftists.

The leftists fear nothing more than an up-or-down discussion on whether you need or want an American welfare state. Oh, they hold all the cards – the media, the government, the academia – but still they are afraid, down in the core of their souls, that they will lose. It is thus why they deride  abolition as impossible, and abolitionists as crazy: because they fear nothing more than to have the abolitionists grow strong enough to give them an open fight.

They want to go back to the pre-Goldwater years, where there was no serious anti-Welfare-State thought in the American mainstream, so they're safe and secure forever and nobody ever challenges them. They want a universe in which they won in the 1930's, establishing their revolution, and they will now control the landscape forevermore.

The idea that the system is forever, or that it can't be abolished without catastrophic social disruption, is a Leftist weapon. It functions in the same way, and for the same purpose, as military leaflets dropped behind enemy lines, extolling your own forces as invincible and the enemy's cause as hopeless.

When an individual accepts that he will live and die unfree, there, upon the battlefield that is that one person's mind, the Socialists win.

[makattak]

Alright, this isn't going to cause a collapse soon.

All we did was move the day of reckoning closer. I'm betting 10 years closer.

However, every other major country knows we can't be spending this much money. It may be they expect that we will reign things back in.

If so, the ONLY reason we are still able to sell bonds is that the purchasers expect the Republicans will take over in November and stop this reckless course.

We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.

We're in dangerous territory, though. The United States is no longer the safe bet. Obama wanted us to be "just another country" and he's at least succeeded in that.

Here's the thing though. We have this year to fix things. If the level of spending isn't SIGNIFICANTLY cut back next year, our bond rating will fall, our interest rates will increase and we will have to spend large amounts of money on simply debt payments.

Should that happen... Weimerica.

Preparing for bed last night I realized another forseeable consequence of this.

Now that America is just "another country" and not THE safe country in the world, investments in this country are now more risky. In this I am not talking about lending to the US Government, but investments in the businesses in this country are now more risky.

They are now more risky because there are now significantly increased chances that our economy will 1) collapse 2) massively increase taxes and/or 3) confiscate "unfair" profits. The chances of these three were effectively zero four years ago.

Investors could rely on the fact that America made only small changes. It was the safe place to invest. We are not anymore. (I know I'm repeating myself, but this is important.)

And here's why: I'm quite sure people are aware that the United States has a "trade deficit." Personally, I don't care about the trade deficit. We get cheaper goods from abroad and they get a higher standard of life. It's great.

Balancing out that "trade gap" was an "investment gap". Our currency doesn't have to adjust because foreigners use the dollars we spend on foreign goods on investment in the United States.

If that investment falls, the value of the dollar to foreigners will fall. (Aside: This is in addition to the decrease in value due to a greater chance that the US dollar may experience massive inflation due to a economic collapse.) As such, it will become more and more expensive to purchase foreign goods.

Some people may cheer this, but to me it means the cost of living for every person in the United States will increase. The quality of life in the United States will fall, even without a collapse.

[mtnbkr]

Except that they don't know how to operate a firearm.

Don't be so smug.  Not all lefties are unarmed and passive.  It's a dangerous habit to assume they're all granola crunching hippies.

Chris

[longeyes]

Not only has America become a comparatively less safe place to invest, it has become a place where investment risk itself is now being controlled, for broader political ends, by our government.  There is no way any more to invest for income, inside America, without reaching into risky territory.  This heavily impacts seniors, for example; profligate government spending and Fed strictures have made what used to be a three or four per cent world into a one per cent world.  The only people with reliable retirement income streams are and will be those who have government pensions, who are therefore under the government's thumb and can be counted on to back government politically.  Obama's "war against risk" is a war against liberty.

[AZRedhawk44]

Not only has America become a comparatively less safe place to invest, it has become a place where investment risk itself is now being controlled, for broader political ends, by our government.  There is no way any more to invest for income, inside America, without reaching into risky territory.

One of these things is not like the other.

'Splayn plz.

If the government is controlling investment risk (socializing investment loss), then how is there risky territory in which to invest?

[longeyes]

If you are on government assistance you are okay, if you are not you are beleaguered.  Debt instruments pay next to nothing if short-term or, if longer term, face serious capital risk if rates are forced up.

Government, as I see it, is doing both: increasing risk for ordinary savers and investors and entrepreneurs while "socializing investment loss," as you put it (correctly) for the "extraordinary" (the politically-connected financial class).  For the politically favored--although this is a shifting scene--there is such a thing as de facto riskless investing.  Take mortgage REITs that can lever three or four to one while having Fannie and Freddie back their investments.  So long as the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low, these companies are almost riskless cash cows.

[roo_ster]

Government, as I see it, is doing both: increasing risk for ordinary savers and investors and entrepreneurs while "socializing investment loss," as you put it (correctly) for the "extraordinary" (the politically-connected financial class). 

Deserves repeating.

Many, many cases, but the GM/Chrysler "bankruptcy" that saved union benefits and screwed investors is but one.

[roo_ster]

Don't be so smug.  Not all lefties are unarmed and passive.  It's a dangerous habit to assume they're all granola crunching hippies.

Chris

Remember, these guys were leftists in the Progressive tradition:

[mtnbkr]

I was thinking on a smaller scale, but that works as well.

Chris

[taurusowner]

One of these things is not like the other.

'Splayn plz.

If the government is controlling investment risk (socializing investment loss), then how is there risky territory in which to invest?

I don't think he means risk the same way in both sentences.  If I may presume, I believe he is referring to the government controlling market risk in the first statement.  But "risky territory" is referring to the risk of having the wealth you made in the market, seized by the government.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Any kind of belief that 'the welfare state is forever' is nothing but a psychological weapon for the leftists.

Why do you persist in this foolish belief?  

When the people actually in this country, the people actually involved in politics on the ground level trying to roll this stuff back, the people with actual experience about which you're speaking, when we all unanimously tell you that repealing entitlements is a difficult and intractable problem, you might do well to listen and learn, rather than claim that we've all been duped by the left and that you somehow know better.  

There's an awful lot more to repealing this stuff than your naive attitudes would indicate.  The difficulties we've encountered over the years aren't mere trickery from the left meant to lull us into complacency.  The challenges are real, they are solid, and they have been stymieing our best efforts for generations.  

Show a little respect for the work we're trying to accomplish, and for all of our efforts to date.  If it were just a matter of not falling for the left's tricks, we would have solved this mess long ago.

Just sayin'...

[MicroBalrog]

Where have I said anything about it being easy?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You've said several times, in several threads, that we shouldn't believe repeal is difficult because that's just a trick of the left.

Well, sorry pal, we don't believe repeal is difficult because we've been tricked.  We believe repeal is difficult it because we have some experience in these matters and we know it to be true.  

[Inor]

There's an awful lot more to repealing this stuff than your naive attitudes would indicate.  The difficulties we've encountered over the years aren't mere trickery from the left meant to lull us into complacency.  The challenges are real, they are solid, and they have been stymieing our best efforts for generations.  

Show a little respect for the work we're trying to accomplish, and for all of our efforts to date.  If it were just a matter of not falling for the left's tricks, we would have solved this mess long ago.

Ditto that!

There has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been repealed in the history of the Republic.  If we somehow manage to get this repealed, it will be the first time any government "givaway" program was stopped.  To say it is going to be difficult may be the understatement of all time.

[MicroBalrog]

You've said several times, in several threads, that we shouldn't believe repeal is difficult because that's just a trick of the left.

Well, sorry pal, we don't believe repeal is difficult because we've been tricked.  We believe repeal is difficult it because we have some experience in these matters and we know it to be true.  

No. That's not what I said. I said that we shouldn't believe repeal is impossible. I've always said it'll be difficult.