United States Federal Government Shut-Down

I say we sell Alaska back to the Russians to pay the national debt, as long as they agree to take Sarah Palin as part of the deal.

 

Highly unlikely, unless intentional as sufficient revenue flow continued to pay the debts and even some of the other Federal spending.

???

The Democrat majority Senate also changes the rules to get their way, and didn't even allow the House budget bill to be discussed, much less voted on.

That should be a decision of the people, beginning at the local level, and more often than not, ending at the State level of government.

That it has, but the 16th amendment changed 'how' quite significantly, and with consequences that provide the Federal government the means to spread misery and debt more equally among ALL the States and their citizens.

So the wealthy are not charitable, lack compassion, and simply hoard all the money they make? Should there be a law requiring the rich to take a loss on any investments they make, allowing only the poor to profit? Government makes a growing economy a necessity which results in those who money to invest in growing the economy to profit, and those with more money to invest profit more. If they were required to lose on their investment would they still invest?

With increasing population, even a greater number of people would become unemployable were it not for the jobs created by those with great wealth. Producing and providing the essential necessities of life does not require employing millions of persons, but producing what you might call the extravagances, yachts, expensive sports cars, designer clothes, personal aircraft, etc. creates an enormous number of jobs which would all go away were it not for those who possess the wealth to purchase them.

But now the shut down is over, so what have we gained, besides increasing the Federal debt from about $16,747,000,000,000 to $17,076,000,000,000 or a whopping $329,000,000,000 in one day?

At some point in the future, default may become the preferred option as the only means to survive, but one must question what kind of government will we end up with as a result?

 

I'm sure the Russians would jump at the opportunity to gain access to all the oil reserves of Alaska, and probably the Alaskan citizens would prosper more as a result.
Although I don't think a cent of the money would go toward paying down the national debt but would instead be used to increase funding of existing Federal programs and create even more new ones, with the one time windfall, creating an even greater budgeting deficit going forward.

Old habits are hard to break.

 

Personally I'm not surprised by this at all. I expected our economy to go down hill since shortly after 9/11. (Shortly as in 3 years or so because I was young at that time.)

 

Naw Son, I haven't trolled for chicks here since that time i ran into your mom. Still have nightmares from that.

 

And I think the Democrats are worse.

I agree, we DO have a representative Republic NOT a Democracy, but who is it that is supposed to be represented? It would appear those who serve as our representatives have no greater expertise relative to the intricacies of government than the common man/woman who they are elected to represent.
Equally miserable is a form of equality, and I've yet to see a government program that has raised the living standard of the poor without having the greatest negative effect on the middle classes, and little or none at all on the wealthiest. Agreed, it should be a subject discussed in its own thread.

Profit is relative to the product or service brought to market being made attractive to a large consumer base. If the product(s) and/or service(s) along with their price meet the satisfaction of the consumers in a large nough quantity to produce growing profits, taxes are being paid in accordance with the applicable laws, and no laws broken or regulations ignored, no additional or increased responsibilities relative to the profits being made are applicable.
A moral problem? We are talking about politics, not religion.

I don't remember anyone asking for my money, but if you're referring to the Reagan Presidency years, they were my most profitable.

Time would be an acceptable answer if it was being used to improve the situation. I think the $329,000,000,000 single day debt increase is indicative that it is not being put to good use.

 

Compared to Obamas Changing the Constitution, I can care less about any of this.

Obama directly nullified Amendments the Constitution with his new laws, and Democrats don't say "Democracy is dead," with regards to that.

Why is the written law only important when "republicans" change it?

 

So the Democrats understand a broad objective notion of policy irrespective of voting, At first, they come to a decision upon particular projections of "immutable nature".

 

That much of your post I agree with totally.

 

What change of rules in the Senate are you referring to with respect to the recent budget battle?

The House had 200 democrat votes plus a couple dozen pragmatic republican votes to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit, which is enough for it to pass the House. The Senate would have voted for it and didn't have a reason to not discuss it or not vote on it. Boehner didn't allow a vote in the House even though the votes were there to end the shutdown.

Boehner used the shutdown and debt deadline to try to twist Obama's arm to derail the health care mandate. It didn't work. Boehner conceded.

 

Your link for some reason is not accessable.

Morals such as what you are promoting should not be decided by politicians and subject to laws or regulations.

Wealth and income extremes do have effect on us all, but it also provides opportunities that would otherwise not exist. The gap between the rich and the poor will only continue to increase as a result of the actions taken by Feds micromanaging of our economy. Our government(s), Federal, State and local, not to mention indebted individuals and businesses have become dependent on inflation and devaluation of our currency as a means of their survival.

 

Voyage,

Maybe you should request the creation of a 'cartoon' sub-forum?

 

I didn't claim the Senate changed any rules in respect to the recent budget battle. I simply stated that rules changes have been employed in the Senate, and not long ago Reid was proposing doing so in changing the filibuster rules, which required 60 votes to cut off, since the Democrats were a majority, but only 54 in number, to requiring 51 votes rather than the 60.

And Reid did not allow a vote or even a discussion of the budget bill passed by the House and sent to the Senate.

As confirmed by the Federal debt increase.

 

And I get: "The page you were looking for appears to have been moved, deleted or does not exist." from the sites web page displayed beneath a picture of two black youths, the one on the right wearing a red blouse with white polka-dots.

A brief summary would suffice.