Coddling of the American Mind

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

The concept of perpetual union was used as the basis for deciding the case, The case in no way proved there was a perpetual union, perceptual union was  simply accepted as a fact in order to procede, but it was NOT proven by this case.

---

Mr. Williams completely ignores the Articles of Confederation, which formed The United States before the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris was with the United States. It states that the Union was/is perpetual, in so many words.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

When the Constitution was written, the writers' first words were:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

Both the name United States and the concept of a Union were taken as a given. Nothing in the Constitution says that the Union was no longer perpetual, so it remains so.

That's probably why he's an economics professor and not a law or history professor.

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

The concept of perpetual union was used as the basis for deciding the case, The case in no way proved there was a perpetual union, perceptual union was  simply accepted as a fact in order to procede, but it was NOT proven by this case.

---

Mr. Williams completely ignores the Articles of Confederation, which formed The United States

before

the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris was

with the United States

. It states that the Union was/is perpetual, in so many words.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

Which is probably why he's an economics professor and not a law or history professor.

---

Nice find.  BTW, who signed the Articals of Confederation for Texas?

 

===========

I just want to add real quick that I do not believe Texas has any greater or lesser right to leave the USofA than any other state.

 

[ETA]

I also like how the AoC annexed Canada, eh.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Whats interesting is we had millions of Southerners engaged in "tratorous" acts against the federal government, but no one, not even the President of the Confederacy was ever thus charged. 

Is it because if it ever came before a court of law, it would be declared they all acted legally, because secession was legal?

 

In fact....

 

With all fifty states offering petitions to the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now front page news in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union?

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

 

[wherorangi]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

Historical Ignorance

 

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, .... 

---

read the Supreme Court ruling yourself ok

+

---

I did.

It said they were not going to touch the question of whether or not a state had the right to secede.

 

>>It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Or am I reading that incorrectly.

Whether or not they could legally secede was not the question.  They were under US federal governance when the case was submitted to the courts.  That was one of the defendent's key points.

---

""6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

 

 

+

i just add something

there is a distinction between a) the territory of a State and its people, and b) the legal government of a State. The US constitutional authority of recognising the government of a State rests with the US Congress

is the constitutional duty of the US Congress to ensure that every State in the Union is governed by a republic form of government

the Government of a State cannot secede the State from the Union. Only the people of the State can do that. Either thru uprising/revolution, or by having their US Congress representatives petition the Houses to secede. And when the Houses agree (the representatives of the other States) then the petition can be granted

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

The concept of perpetual union was used as the basis for deciding the case, The case in no way proved there was a perpetual union, perceptual union was  simply accepted as a fact in order to procede, but it was NOT proven by this case.

---

Mr. Williams completely ignores the Articles of Confederation, which formed The United States

before

the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris was

with the United States

. It states that the Union was/is perpetual, in so many words.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

Which is probably why he's an economics professor and not a law or history professor.

---

Nice find.  BTW, who signed the Articals of Confederation for Texas?

 

===========

I just want to add real quick that I do not believe Texas has any greater or lesser right to leave the USofA than any other state.

 

[ETA]

I also like how the AoC annexed Canada, eh.

---

I edited my reply above while you were typing. Although it would be interesting to have Texas secede and the United States demand repayment (with interest) of the Republic of Texas's national debt, which the United States paid off when Texas joined the Union.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK.

---

That vote preceded the Brexit vote. I haven't heard much about Scotland since shortly after Brexit, but at that time the pundits thought Scotland might reverse course if the referendum were brought up again.

---

That's true. But another referendum may not occur, and the vote could still go the same way if one did. Either way, if Scotland left the UK, they would a tiny country (population-wise) all alone in the world. If they did move towards another referendum, they wouldn't be silly enough to do it before the UK leaving deal with the EU is settled.

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

What makes you think that the UK will stop trading with the EU countries? It may even end up with a very similar agreement that we all had in the Common Market. Talks will be taking place soon. And what makes you think that we won't continue trading with the rest of the world? There's no reason for us to stop that.

 

---

you wont get free trade access. You need pay attention to what the French and Germans are saying, they are not going to give you free trade. You will be quotaed, and tariffed on what quotas you do get from them

and thats what kills you in the trade sense. Quotas and tariffs. 41% of your current economic output, England is not going to get that free anymore. And there is no other market to pick that up, at the zero tarriff non-quota rates you have had

---

The Germans and French are only 2 of many countries in the EU, and they are all equal partners.

I don't expect a free trade deal with the EU. I think some deal will be agreed though. What I do expect is that the UK will continue in its current prosperity, regardless of what happens with the EU. There is no doom and gloom ahead for the UK.

As an aside, I also expect others to move towards leaving the EU once they have seen the UK's experience. There are such moves afoot in a number of member countries. The EU isn't working any more. As a free trade setup it still works; as an internal borderless setup it fails because almost all of the free movement of labour head for just 2 or 3 countries. And, of course, the euro is up to its neck is problems.

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, the Empire has gone, which is a good thing, and the British Commonwealth has gone too - changed into The Commonwealth. I don't see your point in bringing them up.

---

when Britain chose to join the Common Market, it overnight pretty much killed all the trade between the Commonwealth nations. Britain was the piviot and the glue that held all of that together

was not just us that it affected. Canada, Australia, and all the others were cut out as well.  Was quite hard for everyone when that happened. Canada and Australia were able to pretty much go straight over and partner up with the US. The rest of us being small just kinda got forgotten

---

So you have a chip on your shoulder about it. That's what it comes across as.

It's still irrelevant to this discussion. What will be will be, and the UK will continue to flourish. I'm not saying that nobody, and no businesses, will be affected. Of course they will. I'm saying that the UK will continue to flourish. Also, the EU will no longer be a financial drain on the UK

[Rhonda Huntress]

Yeah, they did do a bit of spin there about people, the land and the ruling govenrment.  I don't know how it went with other Confederate states but with Texas, since the governer under US authority refused the confederacy and was thus ousted, they could claim the citizens of the US who lived in Texas were always citizens of the US.  Otherwise it woulod have been an act of agression, conquest and expansionism against a sovern country.  So we could retroactively claim that such secessions were never allowed to begin with, all the death and later retributions were justified.

Might makes right, after all.

It does not matter what rights a state had or may have had any more than it matters who owned the land before we took it.  That war was fought and lost.  The states no longer have any rights.  And we own the land.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

Whats interesting is we had millions of Southerners engaged in "tratorous" acts against the federal government, but no one, not even the President of the Confederacy was ever thus charged. 

Is it because if it ever came before a court of law, it would be declared they all acted legally, because secession was legal?

 

In fact....

 

With all fifty states offering petitions to the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now front page news in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union?

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

 

---

Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason and held in prison for quite a while.

Anyone who was part of the Confederate government and army who had previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution was forbidden to hold office in the United States unless the Congress removed their ban by a two thirds majority. (14th Amendment, Article 3.)

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

They decided not to try Davis for a variety of reasons, including some saying that it would be double jeopardy for him to be tried when already being punished under the Constitution.

All the Confederates were eventually pardoned for treason by Andrew Johnson:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Tip: relying on articles by people who say things you already agree with isn't always a reliable way of getting information.

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, the Empire has gone, which is a good thing, and the British Commonwealth has gone too - changed into The Commonwealth. I don't see your point in bringing them up.

---

when Britain chose to join the Common Market, it overnight pretty much killed all the trade between the Commonwealth nations. Britain was the piviot and the glue that held all of that together

was not just us that it affected. Canada, Australia, and all the others were cut out as well.  Was quite hard for everyone when that happened. Canada and Australia were able to pretty much go straight over and partner up with the US. The rest of us being small just kinda got forgotten

---

So you have a chip on your shoulder about it. That's what it comes across as.

It's still irrelevant to this discussion. What will be will be, and the UK will continue to flourish. I'm not saying that nobody, and no businesses, will be affected. Of course they will. I'm saying that the UK will continue to flourish. Also, the EU will no longer be a financial drain on the UK

---

and two fish. Is history

the relevance is what happens when your biggest market arrangement goes from a free trade agreement to a quota/tariif agreement

+

and yes what be will be. It always is

+

the amount Britain pays is about 280 million pounds a week. Which is less than the 1% of GDP that the other EU countries pay. Mrs Thatcher re-negotiated a cheaper rate for Britain in 1984.  France pays its 1% of GDP and also pays the amount that Britain doesnt pay. Which is about an extra 965 milllion pounds a year for France to pay

 

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I edited my reply above while you were typing. Although it would be interesting to have Texas secede and the United States demand repayment (with interest) of the Republic of Texas's national debt, which the United States paid off when Texas joined the Union.

---

Oh that would be interesting.

Lawyers and accounts would have party!

Texas pays in to the US government more than the get.  Would all that disparity be taken into consideration? How about the money spent protecting our boards now that the US government does not do that but passes the need and the costs on to the boarder states?  If the debt is paid off, does that means Texas can reclaim the territories it traded for the 10MM?

10 million at 5% semi-annually fo 180 years ... 3.8 billion?  I don't know; I'm not an accountant. In 2015 Texas paid 69 Billion is state funds and received 43 billion in federal funds. The US would need to pay Texas 23 billion to call it even.  You can keep New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.

 

Texas has it's own power grid which would make it easy to disconnect there.  It has its own military -- which is one of the few powers the Texas governor actually has, he grants the use of Texas armed forces to POTUS when asked -- in addition to the boarder patrol.  It has multiple protected ports but losing rail access to the Pacific would be a big disadvantage  Oil, agriculture, industry.  We would have to rebuild our auto industry; not that it was ever a big comparator with Detroit but still.

 

It will never happen.  But we like to think about it from time to time.

[wherorangi]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

 

It does not matter what rights a state had or may have had any more than it matters who owned the land before we took it.  That war was fought and lost.  The states no longer have any rights.  And we own the land.

---

the people have rights. The state governments dont have any in themselves, other than to govern the affairs internal to the State in accordance with the US Constitution. The state governments dont have any rights other than this. They never did

the US Congress can dissolve any State government at any time it chooses when it is the opinion of the Congress that a State government is no longer acting as a republic form of government. And have the people in the State elect a new government for themselves

the people being citizens of the United States. US citizenship,  an arrangement the people themselves accepted for themselves on their joining the Union

has always been there this has. Since the original 13 colonies created the Union 

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

wherorangi wrote:

 The state governments dont have any rights other than this. They never did 

---

Exactly!

It has ALWAYS been that way.

Now that it has been retconed.

 

 

[wherorangi]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

 The state governments dont have any rights other than this. They never did 

---

Exactly!

It has ALWAYS been that way.

Now that it has been retconed.

 

 

---

(:

what you said before to Theresa is right

we do have to keep a close eye on our central governments, and our local governments. If we dont the chits are capable of doing anything. And the employees, who sometimes think just bc they on the payroll that they get to decide everything

[Rhonda Huntress]

Yeah, all it takes is for the right (or wrong) 5 people to agree and it all changes in a blink.  It's not like there has ever been a supream court decision that was over turned before ...

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Tip: relying on articles by people who say things you already agree with isn't always a reliable way of getting information.

---

C'mon Theresa, you feel good your way, I'll feel good mine.

;-).

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Amongst my elderly friends, there's a dissapointing "The world is going to hell, I'm glad I won't be around to see it" outlook.

---

Yeah. Very much this. (But also not at all this)

I have a barreload of respect for many older folks. They've made compromises and decisions I'll never have to make, they've dealt with hardships I'll probably never see - that I probably can't even create a context for. Somehow they hold up in the wind, despite

so much time

 having been spent trying to tear them down.

While the elderly may have endured hardships I can never imagine, the same can be said for five year old children like little Omran Daqneesh of Aleppo, who's picture broke hearts around the world last week. Meanwhile, as wherorangi notes, "stupidity" no longer precludes longevity. Wisdom comes with age, but age sometimes comes alone. If you never see hardship (and I hope you never do), I don't think that precludes you from obtaining wisdom. That said, maybe there's some merit to the idea that respect for elders will wane as the human condition improves? It seems you sorta argued that for yourself just now. ;-).

Cognitive declines can accompany old age. I may not escape them. I don't want people to have more respect for my opinions than I do, and it's possible that the current me would not respect opinions held by the future me, even knowing all the same facts. The goal remains for the future me to be better than the current me.

But I've seen this sentiment a lot - when I first started working in my career (6.5-ish years ago) the MD of the company told me that I "should be learning Chinese" (I think he meant

Cantonese

) instead of applying for British jobs related to the engineering industry.

So to counterbalance this mindset, I've experienced some of the opposite. I had a bit in my still-buried post about this concept as it related to Brexit, I'll try and include:-

"My group (folks my age or a little older) all voted in, along with myself. My parents/relations (and those of my peers), members of my old church, a handful of academics that I'm familiar with - all voted with me too, many asked me - specifically - how they should vote. This might be an effect some of you saw -

since the decision wouldn't affect people who've now retired, they wanted to vote in a relevant direction for the youth

.

I am told I make well-reasoned arguments

, and my band of listeners grew after the last UK election, during which I was highly involved in political works (raising awareness in general,

I've never been interested in party lines

)."

I am told I'm... well let's not go there. And I am actually interested in party lines (lines of thinking really) insomuch as I don't think any two people see them in the same place. I like pointing that out, which results in me being told I'm... well let's not go there.

I found this a lot more complicated than the "old vs. young" numbers shown in the demographics. I don't think age goes far enough in explaining why this split occured so deeply within UK society.

It's a good thing nothing is as simple as it seems, or we'd have nothing to discuss.

---

And in this discussion, I should make it clear that respect for a person and respect for a person's ideas are two different things.

Sometimes very different.

;-).

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, the Empire has gone, which is a good thing, and the British Commonwealth has gone too - changed into The Commonwealth. I don't see your point in bringing them up.

---

when Britain chose to join the Common Market, it overnight pretty much killed all the trade between the Commonwealth nations. Britain was the piviot and the glue that held all of that together

was not just us that it affected. Canada, Australia, and all the others were cut out as well.  Was quite hard for everyone when that happened. Canada and Australia were able to pretty much go straight over and partner up with the US. The rest of us being small just kinda got forgotten

---

So you have a chip on your shoulder about it. That's what it comes across as.

It's still irrelevant to this discussion. What will be will be, and the UK will continue to flourish. I'm not saying that nobody, and no businesses, will be affected. Of course they will. I'm saying that the UK will continue to flourish. Also, the EU will no longer be a financial drain on the UK

---

and two fish. Is history

What?

the relevance is what happens when your biggest market arrangement goes from a free trade agreement to a quota/tariif agreement

You have no idea what the new arrangement will be. Nobody knows. Talking doom and gloom, the way you are doing, won't affect anything, and the UK will continue to flourish. You talk as though it's all one-way between the UK and the EU, but it isn't. You also talk as though the EU is the only market in the world that the UK trades in, but it isn't. And you talk as though the UK will sink outside the EU, but it won't. In fact, on this topic, you just make gloomy guesses.

+

and yes what be will be. It always is

Aha! Some sense

+

the amount Britain pays is about 280 million pounds a week. Which is less than the 1% of GDP that the other EU countries pay. Mrs Thatcher re-negotiated a cheaper rate for Britain in 1984.  France pays its 1% of GDP and also pays the amount that Britain doesnt pay. Which is about an extra 965 milllion pounds a year for France to pay.

As I said, when the UK leaves the EU, the EU will no longer be a financial drain on the UK. That's a very good thing, imo. The UK will no longer be financially supporting the countries with weaker economies; i.e. all those countries that joined the EU because they wanted to live on the EU's fat. We can't afford it. We have got ourselves into near impossible debt already. It's not my concern what France does.

---

I don't want the UK to be a part of The United States of Europe. That's the direction that the EU is going in - political union - and I don't want it. Maybe you would like NZ to be be part of The United States of Australasia, where your own government isn't allowed to make all the decisions for your country, but that sort of thing doesn't appeal to me.

The EU is in a mess. It's currency is a joke, and is in real danger of collapse. The very few richer countries in it are forced to pay to keep a number of the less rich ones (those that joined to feed on the riches from the EU) afloat. It's a total mess - a failure so far. And it's run by unelected bureaucrats, who tell governments what they can and cannot do in their own countries. That may appeal to you, but it doesn't appeal to me. And it doesn't appeal to a LOT of Europeans. There are moves to leave afoot in a number of member countries, and it wouldn't surprise me if Brexit turns out to be the start of the EU's decline. The Common Market was an excellent idea. It's the only successful aspect of the EU. But, imo, the United States of Europe is not a good idea at all, and it's not what the people of this country voted for when we voted to join the Common Market. Nobody asked us if we wanted political union, but that's the route that our successive governments took us down. When they finally asked us, we said "No".

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

So you have a chip on your shoulder about it.

---

and two fish. Is history

What?

---

A chip and two fish. Fish and chip.

...British things!

Yes? No?

This line was still way easier to understand than a British (as in, someone with all the benefits of having grown-up under British institutions) person who didn't want to spend a negligable amount of money to help out the people around them who are doing worse-off.

I'll keep trying to understand, though.

[Phil Deakins]

That could be it - not very British though - chips and 2 fish? We usually settle for one fish

I have nothing at all against helping those in need, Freya. I do it (financially) all the time - literally - but I do it with money that I have, not with money that I don't have. I object strongly to the country being over 14 TRILLION!!! quid in debt and still borrowing more to give away!, especially since we can't even afford to keep systems, such as the NHS, running well enough for our people. With that sort of debt, we can't afford to run ourselves if we have any notion at all about clearing the debt. I object even more to the continual erosion of our own power to run our own country. Successive governments have ceded self-governing powers to the EU, and I very strongly object to not even being asked if we want to do that - until the recent referendum.

Our governments have continually tried to pretend that Britain today is still the powerful Britain that it once was, but it isn't. So they pretend to be a major nation and volunteer money that we don't have, which has to be borrowed, and consequently the country has been run into horrendous debt. Because of that debt, there isn't a single member of the EU that is as poor at the UK, and yet our governments still live as though we can afford to be a major player in the EU and in the world. We can't. They are living in make-believe land, and the sooner we stop spending money that we don't have, the better.

In the last election, I voted Conservative, solely because it was the only party that intended to reduce the horrendous debt. Cameron has gone now, but I hope they still intend reducing it. You know as well as I do that for far too long (through the whole of your lifetime), our governments have calculated how much 'borrowing requirement' we need for the coming year. They sometimes try to reduce the 'borrowing requirement'. It's become the norm to live on borrowed money, and pile up more and more debt, because we can't afford all that we spend each year. It's all very well and good helping those in need with finance, but only if we've got the finance to help them with. But we haven't. We just pretend that we're still big in the world, so we borrow it and pass it on.

Other countries must laugh their socks off at us. "Let's ask Britain for some money. They still imagine that they're a big player, so, to keep up appearances, they'll borrow it and give it to us, and we won't have to pay it back. Cushty! Pass me that magazine that has the Merc ads in it, please "

If I was in need of money so that I could have things that I don't have, and I asked you for £1000 to help me out. You wouldn't borrow it from a bank to give to me if you didn't have £1000. If I were starving and couldn't afford a scrap of bread to keep me going, you may borrow to help me, but not if the basics of my life were ok. That's the way it is in the EU. We borrow, and pile up more debt, so that those who already have what they actually need, can have more.

Incidentally, I also object strongly to things like HS2. Regardless of what the government says, I don't see that knocking 20 minutes off a journey between Birmingham and London is worth over 20 BILLION quid - probably nearer to 40 billion by the time it's completed. We don't have that sort of money to spend on knocking 20 minutes off a train journey, when we are over 14 trillion quid in debt. It's another case of Britain trying to keep up with the Joneses by appearing to be more than we are. Because a few countries have it, we must have it or we'll fall behind. I heard Cameron say that. It's a ludicrous way of thinking.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

over 14 TRILLION!!! quid

in debt

---

Is that a big number for a country? Bigger than other countries?

It's only really a threat if we're likely to be called on to repay. Is that likely?

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

we can't even afford to keep systems, such as the NHS, running well enough for our people

---

Sounds like a spending priority issue. Like the propogandising idiots last week who were determined to pit cateract sufferers against transpeople, this is almost certainly a fake deficit designed to push the burden onto vulnerable parts of our society.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You know as well as I do that for far too long (through the whole of your lifetime), our governments have calculated how much 'borrowing requirement' we need for the coming year. They sometimes try to reduce the 'borrowing requirement'. It's become the norm to live on borrowed money, and pile up more and more debt,

because we can't afford all that we spend each yea

r.

---

That's by design in the current system and will continue regardless of our membership in the EU. The money we *could* save in membership fees won't be returned to the public services purse (definitely not any time soon, probably never), this was all a lie, and they've admitted this.

I don't know, it all sounds very alarmist. These aren't real problems that you (or anyone else I've seen) can put into real terms that affect individuals, they just sound scary because of big numbers and complex political arrangements. Politicians say they're big problems, but politicians are more interested in job security than serving the population anyway.

Money is transitory, debt is mandatory. 

P.S.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

In the last election, I voted Conservative, solely because it was the only party that intended to reduce the horrendous debt. Cameron has gone now, but I hope they still intend reducing it.

---

Oops (2011). Double oops! (2015) Well I'm sure one day they'll get around to it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

over 14 TRILLION!!! quid

in debt

---

Is that a big number for a country?

Bigger than other countries

?

According to that list, it's second only to the U.S., and almost twice as big as Germany and France.

It's only really a threat if we're likely to be called on to repay. Is that likely?

You mean called on to pay it quickly? - the debt called in? I don't think that's likely but it

does

have to be paid. I didn't bring it up to suggest that it might called in quickly, but to point out that we've been living way beyond our means for decades, which, in turn, means that we can't afford some the things we're paying for, and yet successive governments pretend that we can..

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

we can't even afford to keep systems, such as the NHS, running well enough for our people

---

Sounds like a

spending priority

issue. Like the propogandising idiots last week who were determined to

pit cateract sufferers against transpeople

, this is almost certainly a fake deficit designed to push the burden onto vulnerable parts of our society.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You know as well as I do that for far too long (through the whole of your lifetime), our governments have calculated how much 'borrowing requirement' we need for the coming year. They sometimes try to reduce the 'borrowing requirement'. It's become the norm to live on borrowed money, and pile up more and more debt,

because we can't afford all that we spend each yea

r.

---

That's

by design

in the current system and will continue regardless of our membership in the EU. The money we *could* save in membership fees won't be returned to the public services purse (definitely not any time soon, probably never), this was all a lie, and they've

admitted this

.

Yes, it's by design, but it's not by preference. The goverments would have much preferred to stay out of debt. There were lies told, by both sides, during the debate, but the fact remains, that being out of the EU will save us significant money that can be used where it's actually needed - and will mean that we can run our own affairs again.

I don't know, it all sounds very alarmist. These aren't real problems that you (or anyone else I've seen) can put into real terms that affect individuals, they just

sound scary

 because of big numbers and complex political arrangements. Politicians say they're big problems, but politicians are more interested in job security than serving the population anyway.

I'm not sure if this is applicable but, when I was younger, there was a system called Social Security. It was a back-up system of giving money to those who pretty much desperately needed it, when they didn't qualify for the more normal payments - unemplyment benefit and such. Not long ago, I learned that it no longer exists, and that there really are people now in desperate need but with no government system to turn to. The welfare system has been redesigned, and there is no ultimate safety net any more. That's affected individuals that I know. I have no doubt that it's due to the country living beyond its means and trying to tighten its belt a bit.

Money is transitory, debt is

mandatory

. 

P.S.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

In the last election, I voted Conservative, solely because it was the only party that intended to reduce the horrendous debt. Cameron has gone now, but I hope they still intend reducing it.

---

Oops

 (2011).

Double oops

! (2015) Well I'm sure one day they'll get around to it.

I've opened those links to read when I've posted this. If I've been deceived by Cameron, it wouldn't shock me. After all, he is a polititian and deception is their stock in trade

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

The debt numbers confuse me. I got the figure £14¼ trillion from the forum here not all that long ago, and I believe a saw it in a linked-to webpage. But in the Wikipedia page that you linked to, it states a lot less than that in $s - approximately less than half the 14T in £s. And the "Oops" an "Double oops" links show figures around only £1 trillion.

So I don't know what they are showing, or what's correct, but whatever the right numbers are, the UK is so heavily in debt that it is literally hurting us - and still we borrow more and pile on more debt - imo, just so that our governments can pretend that Britain is something that it no longer is.

ETA: I should have known better than to swallow the rhetoric of polititians, but that's what I did at the last election.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The debt numbers confuse me.

---

I don't mean to misquote you, or make this look like an attack. This applies to everybody. I assume you know me better than singling anyone out.

The point in me posting the previous post was to demonstrate that the debt numbers confuse everyone, even politicians (even me ). They don't have any better than answers than you or I, they have - at best - the same probability of solving the issue (probably less to be fair. As before, they're incentivised to protect themselves, not us) as a well-trained pig (don't worry, not a link about David Cameron). There are no "hard numbers" in these sums, it's all projections.

Politiicians know this, and they know they can pass anything they like provided the public believe their pensions or healthcare are at stake. That's why they put pensions or healthcare in danger in the first place. When you see a shortfall in care, it's because they intend for a shortfall in care. We've become trained to the idea that pensions can be threatened and even lost, and they have learned how to keep this threat alive.

"Coddling" doesn't have a purpose that ends with education, or even with insulating people from sources of criticism. Once people will accept lies on this scale from those in power - once it becomes so hard to understand the truth for yourself, once they ensure that there is no middle ground, and

- they know they have you in a world of arguing based on emotion, instead of logic.

Once this happens...

• They can  get people to vote against their own best interests.
• They can establish order any way they like, for any reason they like.
• They can ignore criticism and prevent effective organisation of opposition.

We'll even help them do it.

<3