Make sure the kids have the proper permits. Government requires permits for lemonade stands nowadays.It's going to be a great opportunity for your kids to have that lemonade stand they'd been wishing for. Just be sure to have it wrapped up when the shut down ends.
Let's hope so. Maybe the U.S. can even stop spending enough to balance the budget.If the shut down last more than two weeks, govt contractors will no longer be working and layoffs will occur.
And that's too bad, since if they got something done the U.S. would have a balanced budget and wouldn't be putting a trillion dollars onto a credit card every year.Most of the Tea party members are completely irrational and blinded by kool-aid drinking hyper partisanship grandstanding that gets ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DONE.
Democrats voted for the Iraq War. They were quite passionate about stopping Saddam.Still, Democrats even CRITICIZING the war was frequently portrayed as 'emboldening the enemy', borderline treason, etc.
Tea Party people have been compromising for probably 50+ years. It's just they finally started speaking up about five years ago.That is the problem with tea party. They are not rational. They are the ones who don't compromise, then claim its the other party not compromising.
And that's why blanket references to GDP is a bad stat to make spending policies with. May as well just borrow/print a zillion dollars so GDP can look really good for a while, because that's basically all they do with it so they can scare people into wanting more and more government spending.What I was trying to get you to figure out for yourself in pointing out the denominator in debt/GDP ratio is that government spending is a component of GDP. When you cut government spending, you cut GDP.
They call it a shutdown, but about 85% of government is still funded. The longer it goes on, I think the more people will realize maybe smaller government isn't so bad. Like happened with the sequester.3. Just what is shut down- DMV? City halls? Some government workers not coming to work?
Peter Schiff predicted the financial crash, and over and over he was laughed at for the prediction.Peter Schiff?! LOL.
1.) Peter Schiff is not an economist. Durrrrr.
They call it a shutdown, but about 85% of government is still funded. The longer it goes on, I think the more people will realize maybe smaller government isn't so bad. Like happened with the sequester.
Peter Schiff predicted the financial crash, and over and over he was laughed at for the prediction.
Ron Paul predicted it too. All the way back around the year 2002.
Guess we should have listened to both of them.
They call it a shutdown, but about 85% of government is still funded. The longer it goes on, I think the more people will realize maybe smaller government isn't so bad. Like happened with the sequester.
Peter Schiff predicted the financial crash, and over and over he was laughed at for the prediction.
Ron Paul predicted it too. All the way back around the year 2002.
Guess we should have listened to both of them.
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul caused the crash?Wow talk about self fulfilling prophecy, and you couldn't be happier.
We have a name for those that actively try to destroy or hurt America or Americans.
I'd have to look over Schiff's predictions more, but I know Ron Paul was quite specific on the housing crash and why all the way back in 2002. Maybe there's something to that Austrian economics after all. Short version from one example:Ron Paul and Peter Schiff predicted about ten out of the last one financial crash.
You have to remember they are Austrian economists, so instead of math or real economics they substitute feelings. That's why they are wrong so much.
Ron Paul said:Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market.
Ron Paul and Peter Schiff predicted about ten out of the last one financial crash.
You have to remember they are Austrian economists, so instead of math or real economics they substitute feelings. That's why they are wrong so much.
Wow talk about self fulfilling prophecy, and you couldn't be happier.
We have a name for those that actively try to destroy or hurt America or Americans.
I'd have to look over Schiff's predictions more, but I know Ron Paul was quite specific on the housing crash and why all the way back in 2002. Maybe there's something to that Austrian economics after all. Short version from one example:
The Ron Paul prediction videos on Youtube are fun. It's like he has a time machine or something.
Like I said, we're arguing matters of degrees in the amount of change the Senate imposes on a House bill. With regards to your second point, even Justice Marshall stated in United States v. Munoz-Flores:
Do you not feel there is something wrong with a system that blatantly end runs around a Constitutional provision?
I wonder if you'd give the same credit to the Democrat who predicted "too big to fail" when discussing the repeal of Glass Steagall: linkI'd have to look over Schiff's predictions more, but I know Ron Paul was quite specific on the housing crash and why all the way back in 2002. Maybe there's something to that Austrian economics after all. Short version from one example:
The Ron Paul prediction videos on Youtube are fun. It's like he has a time machine or something.
What is our present condition? We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us, or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum.
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting quote from Abraham Lincoln that sums this up pretty well:
Before anyone freaks out no I am not comparing the ACA to slavery. What's interesting is the overall political parallel. The Democrats and Republicans both ran very clearly on a platform, one supporting the ACA and one opposing. The Republicans lost in a free and fair election. Now we are told that the government will be shut down or the debt ceiling breached unless the Democrats surrender to the defeated party. Lincoln correctly describes the consequences of this, which is that the losing party will just endlessly repeat this behavior.
They. Didn't. Lose. If they had lost in total they would not have a majority in the House.
You're conflating the popular vote with the election, its the same argument that has been made since before these states were united.
You're also conflating surrender with compromise. As we discussed yesterday, there have been multiple offers that Mr. Reid has rejected including one that should have been quite palatable (delay the individual mandate 1yr).
If the Republicans are running afoul of Lincoln's advice, then the Democrats are running afoul of Tocqueville's.
First, Tocqueville never made the quote you are referencing.
Second, the Republicans ran on a platform of repealing the affordable care act. They lost seats in both houses of Congress, they lost the popular vote in all elections and they lost the presidency running on this platform. After this platform lost, the Republicans get up and demand... that we repeal the affordable care act. ie: we should implement their platform anyway.
Third, as has been repeatedly established, taking a hostage and demanding two million dollars and then reducing your ransom demand to one million dollars is not a compromise, it is a hostage taking. This can't get any simpler.
First, Tocqueville never made the quote you are referencing.
Second, the Republicans ran on a platform of repealing the affordable care act. They lost seats in both houses of Congress, they lost the popular vote in all elections and they lost the presidency running on this platform. After this platform lost, the Republicans get up and demand... that we repeal the affordable care act. ie: we should implement their platform anyway.
Third, as has been repeatedly established, taking a hostage and demanding two million dollars and then reducing your ransom demand to one million dollars is not a compromise, it is a hostage taking. This can't get any simpler.
Any proof of that? I can only find one blog, which cites no sources (I know, you can't prove a negative) that Tocqueville didn't say that.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
This is a variant expression of a sentiment which is often attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Fraser Tytler, but the earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Variant: The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
To your second point, the relevant question is are the representatives following this wishes of their constituents (which are not the entirety of the US population). Considering the polling in a number of states, I feel that largely they are but it would make for an interesting study, comparing polling data against ACA votes. I imagine we will never see such a poll or study though, because it might actually show Congress is doing what it is supposed to do.
Third: no one has adequately explained why anyone is exempted from Obamacare. The Republicans, since before the law was passed, have been explaining why they don't support it. The Democrats don't want to compromise on it. What else are the Republicans supposed to do? This is their last Constitutional avenue to pursue.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#Misattributed
That should do it I think.
So now the pollsters are conspiring against Republicans too? Didn't we get enough of that before the last election to put that nonsense to bed?
I think you are right about the legislative incentives for quite a few of these Republican House members. They live in districts that are so gerrymandered and so safe at this point that they have nothing to fear but a primary challenger. Unfortunately, the Republican Party claims to be a national governing party. If they have given up that claim and now only represent regional, rural interests, that's a different story I guess.
They did compromise on it... that's what happened while they were writing the law. The law was written, passed, signed, and upheld by the Supreme Court. There is no need to revisit and re-compromise on settled law. The Republicans have decided to instead hold government services and the debt ceiling hostage to make Democrats re-litigate what has already been litigated.
I want to repeal the rest of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that have been made permanent. We need big tax hikes on everyone. You don't want to do that? Okay, than how about a tax hike on almost everyone. See? I compromised! WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE??
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#Misattributed
That should do it I think.
So now the pollsters are conspiring against Republicans too? Didn't we get enough of that before the last election to put that nonsense to bed?
I think you are right about the legislative incentives for quite a few of these Republican House members. They live in districts that are so gerrymandered and so safe at this point that they have nothing to fear but a primary challenger. Unfortunately, the Republican Party claims to be a national governing party. If they have given up that claim and now only represent regional, rural interests, that's a different story I guess.
They did compromise on it... that's what happened while they were writing the law. The law was written, passed, signed, and upheld by the Supreme Court. There is no need to revisit and re-compromise on settled law. The Republicans have decided to instead hold government services and the debt ceiling hostage to make Democrats re-litigate what has already been litigated.
I want to repeal the rest of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that have been made permanent. We need big tax hikes on everyone. You don't want to do that? Okay, than how about a tax hike on almost everyone. See? I compromised! WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE??
From: 'America Is Already Politically Bankrupt'"At the moment, Washington is fighting over the budget and nobody knows if the county will still be solvent in three weeks," the paper concludes. "What is clear, though, is that America is already politically bankrupt."
What compromise was made? Not one Republican voted for it, in the house or the senate.