Thanks for posting the link; I am normally better about that.

I think the idea of a single, longer term makes sense. I also think closed primaries should be eliminated. I've mentioned before that, for all the dysfunction in California politics, I think they are on to something with their open primary and runoff system.

Currently, I think there is credence to the idea that gerrymandering and closed primaries result in more and more polarized candidates. You can't win the general election until you get through the primary and the primary tends to favor the most extreme candidate. The short election cycle means they are constantly campaigning and constantly seeking patrons to pay for advertisements for the next election.

I would venture that many of the House Republicans were elected on ideological platforms that involved "limited government" and "the USA is going bankrupt because of all the debt and deficits" and "Obamacare is the work of the devil and I will do everything I can to eliminate it." They would be rewarded in their home districts for shutting down the government and taking extreme measures.

I can think of several people on this board that either currently think or have previously thought it would be a good idea for the USA to voluntarily default or to be forced to default on Treasury securities. "Yeah, we have the money to make good but for moral reasons, we are not going to honor the promise we previously made."



To be fair, it seems like the government is preventing access to private businesses and homes that are on public land. That's a subtle but important difference.

 

He has also written in the past tax checks that are more then what a good amount of people on this site probably make in a year.

 

Yah, its all about perspective.

Like this shutdown and obamacare. They are too disconnected from the people to understand their situation. 48% of members of Congress are millionaires. They are never going to understand the poor/lower middle class just like the family of 4 living in a house with dirt floors will never understand paying $800 for a meal at a steak house.

edit: Yes I understand many are millionaires because they are smart and many are poor because they make poor decisions. We don't want people who make poor decisions in positions of power. Unfortunately, we are seeing poor decision after poor decision.

 

Some are also millionaires and in power because they lie/steal/cheat their way there. No surprise when they keep doing the same thing once they are in power. It's a fine line between having someone like that on our side because they are good at what they do and it works in our favor, and having someone like that on our side because they are good at what they do, and will screw us over.

 

Did you know that both the Senate and the House have passed budgets in the passed year? I didn't.

 

I understand that, but is it fair? That's the question...

 

does it matter if it's public or federal lands?

 

It's all relative.

I was, of course, speaking to Hustler here, since he is obviously a baller who uses hundred dollar bills to light the cherry-scented cigars which he purchases at the gas station.

For everyone else, it's just a basic equation: live below your means, spend less than you earn, don't waste money on frivolous crap (7-series BMWs, carbon-fiber bicycles, etc), and save as much as you can.




People seem to make this observation a lot. "As screwed up as California is on X, they sure have their Y together."

Politics, liquor laws, irrigation, avocado production, traffic enforcement, beer-making, electoral politics, fish tacos, road maintenance... I can conclude only that CA does everything better than everyone else.





To be fair, I doubt that I could do any better, given the circus-like atmosphere in which congress must actually operate.






That's kind of the tenet of what I ask in post # 37 of this thread. To wit: what rights does the Federal Government have to control access to land which it owns (or is the custodian of), and what rights of access do private individuals have to land which is not owned by them?

The former depends largely on the definition of what the government is in the first place, and the latter would require a reading of whatever contract exists granting the citizens in question the right to occupy said land (eg: a lease agreement, easement, etc.)

 

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

So yes, where's the law that says they can?

 

Why? To save for a future I might not even see? Sure, you plan ahead, try to save, etc. But you also drop 6 grand on a hot tub, just because it feels good and you can. Living like a pauper to retire early makes no sense to me.

There is a balance to everything.

 

YOLO?

 

That's kind of the key point here.

In land-use, trespass is generally prohibited. There are some historical oddities (eg: Common Law of Grazing) but in general, you are always prohibited from occupying land which you do not own unless specifically authorized.

Now, for land which is privately owned, the situation is very clear. If you want to live on someone else's land, then you execute a Leasehold estate granting you the right to occupy that land, and that document may contain certain prohibitions or restrictions which limit that right. For instance, it might specify that under certain conditions, you are NOT permitted to access the property. (Apartment dwellers: go read your lease- I guarantee you that such a clause is buried in there somewhere.)

The question then becomes what to do with "public" land. Clearly the right of the public to occupy public land is NOT universal. Even under normal circumstances, national parks have hours of operation, restricted areas, etc.

So, really, it all comes down to the lease document which is executed between the tenant and... whoever they executed the document with. Until we know what that piece of paper says, it's pointless to speculate or cast aspersions.




If you earn a sufficiently large amount of money and have a sufficiently large savings that six grand for a hot-tub isn't even something you'd notice without squinting at your monthly balance spreadsheet, then sure. If that will make you happy, then buy a hot tub.

Conversely, you have people like my brother-in-law who, while not destitute and in perpetual debt, seem to spent money at a rate nearly equal to that at which they earn it, precluding the formation of any kind of savings. These people would be well advised to forego hot tub ownership.


I agree absolutely. I am not living like a pauper. I am merely living like someone who earns half as much as I actually do.

Big difference.

 

Ha! Infraction for posting "YOLO". Gotta love this place.

 

Fixed that for ya.

 

'Gestapo' tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone » Local News » NewburyportNews.com, Newburyport, MA

Grand Canyon Cites People For Entering Closed Park « CBS Las Vegas

 

If that's true, then I would not recommend that a mere mortal spend $6k on a hot tub.

 

Touche.

 

GOP offers short-term debt deal; White House a 'maybe'

Here we go, kids.

 

We are all saved. The all mighty all knowing Government has come to an agreement and worked through their differences for the good of the Country.

 

I'm sad. I wanted vacation but I'm considering essential to national security.