NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, with all the spending plans, I've honestly lost track of our national debt. Where are we at now?

We should do what Ecuador did (and what Murray Rothbard proposed) and repudiate the national debt entirely.

11 trillion and counting. The US cant sustain the debt load it is currently taking on. I predict default or severe devaulation of the currency or some mix of both. It's going to be bad no matter what.

Okay, with all the spending plans, I've honestly lost track of our national debt. Where are we at now?


Its about 11 Trillion now. I'd like to add that its also approximately 17% of the entire worlds money supply.

11 trillion and counting. The US cant sustain the debt load it is currently taking on. I predict default or severe devaulation of the currency or some mix of both. It's going to be bad no matter what.

I honestly don't get what Pres. Obama was doing. I know that Bush's spending policies were idiotic, so why is Pres. Obama continuing this spending? Nations are beginning to stop buying our debt, so now we're going to print more money to pay off our debt, which means inflation is going to be jacked up, which means that Americans aren't going to be able to afford as much, which means that imports are going to go down, which means that other nations are going to suffer because they are going to have less buyers, which means layoffs are going to have to take place, and so on...

We should do what Ecuador did (and what Murray Rothbard proposed) and repudiate the national debt entirely.

This is my suggestion. The US keep printing money and buy gold and oil with it or other hard assets. The printing of the money will devalue the currency. They could also speak of the specter of defaulting. That would further devalue the currency. Once its been devalued by 90% or so the hard assets will have gained so much it could pay off the national debt. Remember the 11 trillion owed would be devalued right a long with the currency. Once the currency is devalued to a point where it makes sense to dump the hard assets then is when they should pay off the national debt. The dollar rebounds and things become better. The US could then go on a buying binge with the newly strong US dollar further cementing US global dominance for years to come.

I honestly don't get what Pres. Obama was doing. I know that Bush's spending policies were idiotic, so why is Pres. Obama continuing this spending? Nations are beginning to stop buying our debt, so now we're going to print more money to pay off our debt, which means inflation is going to be jacked up, which means that Americans aren't going to be able to afford as much, which means that imports are going to go down, which means that other nations are going to suffer because they are going to have less buyers, which means layoffs are going to have to take place, and so on...

The only conclusion I come up with is that they are doing this on purpose.

This is my suggestion. The US keep printing money and buy gold and oil with it or other hard assets. The printing of the money will devalue the currency. They could also speak of the specter of defaulting. That would further devalue the currency. Once its been devalued by 90% or so the hard assets will have gained so much it could pay off the national debt. Remember the 11 trillion owed would be devalued right a long with the currency. Once the currency is devalued to a point where it makes sense to dump the hard assets then is when they should pay off the national debt. The dollar rebounds and things become better. The US could then go on a buying binge with the newly strong US dollar further cementing US global dominance for years to come.

Works...but how bad will the affect be on the average American citizen?

We need a solution that can prevent major problems with short-term economy and prevent economic collapse in the future.

Of course, I'd rather solve long-term first, then short-term, but it is still a major concern.

Its really all a plot to stifle China before they become a real problem...

*nod*

Works...but how bad will the affect be on the average American citizen?

We need a solution that can prevent major problems with short-term economy and prevent economic collapse in the future.

Of course, I'd rather solve long-term first, then short-term, but it is still a major concern.

The average American would survive based on the fact that food and many of our basics can be produced right here in the good old US of A. Only energy would be the killer. The overall impact would be felt overseas more than anything. The debt wouldn't go away, it would just be transferred to everyone else. I kind of like the idea.

Its really all a plot to stifle China before they become a real problem...

*nod*

The Chinese thought they were the smart ones. Take that you Commies!

The thing that concerns me the most is that my generation is going to be the one that has to pay off all this debt.

The average American would survive based on the fact that food and many of our basics can be produced right here in the good old US of A. Only energy would be the killer. The overall impact would be felt overseas more than anything. The debt wouldn't go away, it would just be transferred to everyone else. I kind of like the idea.
I say that if we're going to spend, let's focus on finding an alternate energy source. Then, let the U.S. government patent the energy source (we can still pay the inventors a good amount), use the profits from that patent, and pay off the debt. This solves two problems: Energy and debt.

The thing that concerns me the most is that my generation is going to be the one that has to pay off all this debt.

Well if they are planning exactly what I proposed then it will disappear in the worlds greatest magic trick of all time. Your generation may be the most prosperous of them all. I kind of hope they are planning this scenario.

I say that if we're going to spend, let's focus on finding an alternate energy source. Then, let the U.S. government patent the energy source (we can still pay the inventors a good amount), use the profits from that patent, and pay off the debt. This solves two problems: Energy and debt.

I am all about energy independence. We could pull in Canada and Mexico on our plot. We could survive for years just off energy produced in North America.

Well if they are planning exactly what I proposed then it will disappear in the worlds greatest magic trick of all time. Your generation may be the most prosperous of them all. I kind of hope they are planning this scenario.

I hope so too, but I kinda doubt that's the plan.

I say that if we're going to spend, let's focus on finding an alternate energy source. Then, let the U.S. government patent the energy source (we can still pay the inventors a good amount), use the profits from that patent, and pay off the debt. This solves two problems: Energy and debt.

Or better yet: Cut spending in all areas by as much as possible. Learn to live within our means.

I hope so too, but I kinda doubt that's the plan.

Well if that's not the plan it may work out this way on its own. This whole thing appears deliberate to me. I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

Or better yet: Cut spending in all areas by as much as possible. Learn to live within our means.

That's what I would prefer, but, knowing the government, they love to spend.

Or better yet: Cut spending in all areas by as much as possible. Learn to live within our means.

Seriously, all those people without the means to afford Healthcare, Housing and Education...

where do they get off?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 06 Mar 2009 at 11:33:34 PM GMT is:

$ 1 0 , 9 5 6 , 9 8 8 , 2 0 1 , 1 6 6 . 7 9

The estimated population of the United States is 305,767,879
so each citizen's share of this debt is $35,834.33.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.71 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

That's what I would prefer, but, knowing the government, they love to spend.

Of course. Never their own money, though.

Seriously, all those people without the means to afford Healthcare, Housing and Education...

where do they get off?

I meant the government, btw.

Or better yet: Cut spending in all areas by as much as possible. Learn to live within our means.
Live within our means? That's commie talk! The US needs to spend big in order to continue presenting the image of a Western nation. If we fail to put forth the appropriate image, we'll be kicked out of the country club and be forced to hang out with Kosovo and Taiwan in the parking lot outside 7-11.
I don't know about you, but I'd look horrible in torn up leather jacket and mohawk. So I'm definitely against this idea.

I meant the government, btw.

Oh, I know, but, lets face it, if they cut spending,those are the areas being hit hard...

Oh, I know, but, lets face it, if they cut spending,those are the areas being hit hard...

The Department of "Defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one) deserves the biggest cut in spending of all.

The Department of "Defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one) deserves the biggest cut in spending of all.

Well, thing is, the government would never do that, First, theres the massive back-lash from the supposedly "real"-America...and Second, we're stuck in a multi-front war for the time being...

Personally, I agree with you there, but I dont see the fed being able to do that anytime soon...

The Department of "Defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one) deserves the biggest cut in spending of all.

yes it needs it spending cut, but you got to cut the money slowly over time otherwise too many out of work contractors flood the economy.

The Department of "Defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one) deserves the biggest cut in spending of all.

But, who'd defend the US from CommieNazis??!!!!

The average American would survive based on the fact that food and many of our basics can be produced right here in the good old US of A. Only energy would be the killer. The overall impact would be felt overseas more than anything. The debt wouldn't go away, it would just be transferred to everyone else. I kind of like the idea.

The US agricultural system is oil-based. From fuel for tractors to petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, any difficulty with energy directly effects the food supply and cost.

The US agricultural system is oil-based. From fuel for tractors to petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, any difficulty with energy directly effects the food supply and cost.

Idk, Im sure we can get enough oil on our own to cover their needs, we're opening up a new drill platform as well as refinery down here as Im Typing, lol...

The US agricultural system is oil-based. From fuel for tractors to petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, any difficulty with energy directly effects the food supply and cost.

we would have to farm more land. the fertilizers and pesticides can be replaced with a good crop rotation system. Domestic consumption could be met.
Monocultural growing would be a thing of the past.

But, who'd defend the US from CommieNazis??!!!!

If the U.S. were a genuinely peaceful country, like Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Botswana, Costa Rica, or Panama, far fewer people would want to attack us.

Blessed are the young, for they will inherit the national debt.

The US agricultural system is oil-based. From fuel for tractors to petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, any difficulty with energy directly effects the food supply and cost.

Of course, there are ways to mitigate energy costs.

Seriously, all those people without the means to afford Healthcare, Housing and Education...

where do they get off?

It's not normal government spending that's the problem, it's massive government spending that's the problem.

It is to be expected for the government to spend money, but at the amount we are currently spending, eventually the cost will greatly outweigh the benefit.

The problem is is that the government must eventually at least pay off some of the debt. They won't increase taxes (at least income taxes) on anyone but the upper class, as that wouldn't be politically expedient. Even then, that won't be enough. However, they will print more money.

The problem here becomes one of inflation. It's basic economics: When you make more of something, its value decreases. Thus it is with the dollar, which is already weak to begin with. This increase will hurt mainly the poor, as the price of goods will increase so as to reflect the value of the dollar.

Now, you might say the simple solution will be to just enact universal healthcare. The problem is you'll still need to find someway to pay for that, and thus the cycle will repeat itself. So basically, this is just going to keep spiraling downward, unless spending is decreased.

Of course, there are ways to mitigate energy costs.

you can also get oil from coal. cost will go up but its do able.

you can also get oil from coal. cost will go up but its do able.

Not to mention the enviromental impact. I'd like to find an energy source that won't produce a Pittsburg-like atmosphere, thank you.

I honestly don't get what Pres. Obama was doing. I know that Bush's spending policies were idiotic, so why is Pres. Obama continuing this spending? Nations are beginning to stop buying our debt, so now we're going to print more money to pay off our debt, which means inflation is going to be jacked up, which means that Americans aren't going to be able to afford as much, which means that imports are going to go down, which means that other nations are going to suffer because they are going to have less buyers, which means layoffs are going to have to take place, and so on...
he is, as bush was in his last months in office, trying to keep us from sinking so low that it will take a decade to dig our way out of the depression that would result from no increased spending. he is trying to keep us from 25% unemployment.

will it work? no way to know. its the best advice from the best economists.

he is, as bush was in his last months in office, trying to keep us from sinking so low that it will take a decade to dig our way out of the depression that would result from no increased spending. he is trying to keep us from 25% unemployment.

will it work? no way to know. its the best advice from the best economists.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but both of them are wrong.

Sure, government spending might prove to be nice short-term relief, but let's look down the road. The debt must be repaid someday and in someway. I'd be more interested in investing if I saw signs that the dollar was not continuing down the path of worthlessness.

Eventually, we gotta take our lumps and undergo a recession or a depression. It's the way the market corrects itself.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but both of them are wrong.

Sure, government spending might prove to be nice short-term relief, but let's look down the road. The debt must be repaid someday and in someway. I'd be more interested in investing if I saw signs that the dollar was not continuing down the path of worthlessness.

Eventually, we gotta take our lumps and undergo a recession or a depression. It's the way the market corrects itself.
no

we dont

we will have a severe recession for sure but the government can spend us away from a depression. the worst thing we could possibly do is bring back the ghost of herbert hoover and cut government spending.

no

we dont

we will have a severe recession for sure but the government can spend us away from a depression. the worst thing we could possibly do is bring back the ghost of herbert hoover and cut government spending.

However, eventually, it won't matter because the government's going to have to do something to pay off the debt.

Spending = short term success. Long term, inflation must rise, causing worse economic problems.

However, eventually, it won't matter because the government's going to have to do something to pay off the debt.

Spending = short term success. Long term, inflation must rise, causing worse economic problems.
did you miss the president saying that this is temporary spending and that he fully intends to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term?

this is very scary spending. the deficit is at an insane level. anyone would be concerned about it. but it has to be done or we'll all be destitute.

did you miss the president saying that this is temporary spending and that he fully intends to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term?

this is very scary spending. the deficit is at an insane level. anyone would be concerned about it. but it has to be done or we'll all be destitute.

Fair enough, but how many times have I heard the government say they were going to rein in spending, on both sides of aisle. They've lost my trust.

If Obama does cut the deficit in half or at least a decent amount by the end of his first term, he will be my first ever vote for president (I am 17, so I didn't get to vote this last election). I am holding him to his promise.

For me, right now, it's economic policy first, foreign policy second, and social issues third that decides who I vote for.

Seriously, all those people without the means to afford Healthcare, Housing and Education...

where do they get off?

But when the government shoulders the loads of everyone who can't afford the luxuries of healthcare, and education, then the economy sinks and hurts everyone.

Don't get me wrong, if the governemnt could afford to help, I would be very happy to see them do so. In the meantime, however, the government really needs to cut costs... especially to education (there are student loans), and the arts (I will have an increased sales tax here in MN because that tax hike was grossly misrepresented as being only about clean air and water).

Fair enough, but how many times have I heard the government say they were going to rein in spending, on both sides of aisle. They've lost my trust.

If Obama does cut the deficit in half or at least a decent amount by the end of his first term, he will be my first ever vote for president (I am 17, so I didn't get to vote this last election). I am holding him to his promise.

For me, right now, it's economic policy first, foreign policy second, and social issues third that decides who I vote for.
well he did say that if he hasnt got the economy under control by....well i dont remember by when but by the end of his first term anyway that he will have failed and that we should hold him to account for it.

but the republicans are going to have to get their heads out of their asses and run someone who might do a better job (if a better job is still necessary then)

Okay, with all the spending plans, I've honestly lost track of our national debt. Where are we at now?
Then (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/) and now:

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Then came Hurricane Bush......

well he did say that if he hasnt got the economy under control by....well i dont remember by when but by the end of his first term anyway that he will have failed and that we should hold him to account for it.

but the republicans are going to have to get their heads out of their asses and run someone who might do a better job (if a better job is still necessary then)

Unfortunately, I have not seen anyone on my side who has show any real promise. We're a party without any real leadership, like we were during the New Deal era.

We don't have any Ronald Reagans it seems, just more Dubyas.

I plan on entering the political realm in the distant future, and I hope that we can show that conservatism is not dead, we just needed to get back to our original principles.

We don't win on social issues alone. We must show that we believe in small government like we used to, and we need to distance ourselves from the Palins and Gringrichs and get back to the true conservatives.

We don't have any Ronald Reagans it seems, just more Dubyas.

I plan on entering the political realm in the distant future, and I hope that we can show that conservatism is not dead, we just needed to get back to our original principles.

We don't win on social issues alone. We must show that we believe in small government like we used to, and we need to distance ourselves from the Palins and Gringrichs and get back to the true conservatives.

Ah yes...The Limbaughs apparently, lmao...

Then (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/) and now:


Then came Hurricane Bush......

Dubya wasn't a true conservative. Sure, he was socially conservative, but he wasn't politically or economically conservative.

That's why Clinton did so well. Economic conservatism provided to be most successful, and he did it without cutting too much spending.

Well if they are planning exactly what I proposed then it will disappear in the worlds greatest magic trick of all time. Your generation may be the most prosperous of them all. I kind of hope they are planning this scenario.

the major flaw in your plan is that you assume politicians are smart enough to recognize this.

Meh after a few billion it's all rather academic, no?

Ah yes...The Limbaughs apparently, lmao...

I'm talking about the more libertarian Republicans. I am willing to say that it's not conservatism that is the problem, but false conservatism. We didn't offer any real conservative principles, we just yelled "family values". "Family values" are great, but they don't put food on the table.

Meh after a few billion it's all rather academic, no?

I don't think our congressmen would know academic.

the major flaw in your plan is that you assume politicians are smart enough to recognize this.

Oh, they're smart enough, but they don't want to lose votes by admitting that we have to go through economic hardship.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anyone on my side who has show any real promise. We're a party without any real leadership, like we were during the New Deal era.

We don't have any Ronald Reagans it seems, just more Dubyas.

I plan on entering the political realm in the distant future, and I hope that we can show that conservatism is not dead, we just needed to get back to our original principles.

We don't win on social issues alone. We must show that we believe in small government like we used to, and we need to distance ourselves from the Palins and Gringrichs and get back to the true conservatives.
i honestly think that the problem is that the republicans know that the president is doing exactly what needs to be done but if they support his efforts they will get no credit for doing so. and they know that these policies will be passed without their support so there is no big downside to voting against it. (for the country)

the more nuanced "yes this is what needs to be done but it should be slanted in a slightly different direction" is too subtle for the public to latch on to as "AN IDEA". so they wander in the desert waiting for the opportunity to come back in to a better economy where their traditional conservative ideas will be necessary to rein in the democrats (who when they succeed will be insufferably full of themselves)

Oh, they're smart enough, but they don't want to lose votes by admitting that we have to go through economic hardship.

Maybe, but there are a few I would be seriously concerned about. Don't forget the fact that congress is unbelievably slow too. By the time the recognize the above option it will have already passed.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anyone on my side who has show any real promise. We're a party without any real leadership, like we were during the New Deal era.

We don't have any Ronald Reagans it seems, just more Dubyas.

I plan on entering the political realm in the distant future, and I hope that we can show that conservatism is not dead, we just needed to get back to our original principles.

We don't win on social issues alone. We must show that we believe in small government like we used to, and we need to distance ourselves from the Palins and Gringrichs and get back to the true conservatives.

I don't understand why people like Reagan so much. He had good social values but economically he did some of the worst deficit spending I know off. (except for Johnson)

i honestly think that the problem is that the republicans know that the president is doing exactly what needs to be done but if they support his efforts they will get no credit for doing so. and they know that these policies will be passed without their support so there is no big downside to voting against it. (for the country)

the more nuanced "yes this is what needs to be done but it should be slanted in a slightly different direction" is too subtle for the public to latch on to as "AN IDEA". so they wander in the desert waiting for the opportunity to come back in to a better economy where their traditional conservative ideas will be necessary to rein in the democrats (who when they succeed will be insufferably full of themselves)

Hopefully. All I know is that economic conservatism has gotten a lot of blame because people assumed since Bush was a social conservative, he was an economic conservative as well.

Under Bush, spending went out of control. It was a complete failure on the part of the Republican Party. We lost the values of the Reagan years: Small government first, then family values.

You know this thread reminds me of how I ponder what would happen if a country declared bankruptcy.

I don't understand why people like Reagan so much. He had good social values but economically he did some of the worst deficit spending I know off. (except for Johnson)

That was Congress. Reagan said the debt was one of the greatest disappointments of his presidency.

Hopefully. All I know is that economic conservatism has gotten a lot of blame because people assumed since Bush was a social conservative, he was an economic conservative as well.

Under Bush, spending went out of control. It was a complete failure on the part of the Republican Party. We lost the values of the Reagan years: Small government first, then family values.
it wasnt just bush. the republican congress went on a spending spree that would have made lyndon johnson blush.

it wasnt just bush. the republican congress went on a spending spree that would have made lyndon johnson blush.

Yeah, that's why I said "Under Bush, spending went out of the control. It was a complete failure on the part of the Republican Party." I meant that to mean both Bush and Congress.

That was Congress. Reagan said the debt was one of the greatest disappointments of his presidency.

Really what about "Star Wars" and other such projects.


What would happen if a country declared bankruptcy?

Yeah, that's why I said "Under Bush, spending went out of the control. It was a complete failure on the part of the Republican Party." I meant that to mean both Bush and Congress.

Both Bushes, and Reagan, and their respective congresses did that...the Clinton administration was the only one who managed to do otherwise...

What would happen if a country declared bankruptcy?
Rien.

Really what about "Star Wars" and other such projects.


What would happen if a country declared bankruptcy?

To the latter, see "Iceland".

To the former, yes, but a lot of the deficit spending also came from Congress as well.

Really what about "Star Wars" and other such projects.


What would happen if a country declared bankruptcy?

Idk, I thought "Star Wars" was a good idea, it would effectively make Nuclear weapons obsolete...

However, Idk if a country can declare bankruptcy, I think you just become Zimbabwe, lol...

Both Bushes, and Reagan, and their respective congresses did that...the Clinton administration was the only one who managed to do otherwise...

Yes, but recall that it was with a Republican congress that the surplus took place. That was a time where we finally didn't f it up.

Both Bushes, and Reagan, and their respective congresses did that...the Clinton administration was the only one who managed to do otherwise...

At that time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Which is probably the best mix to have looking back on it all. Anytime you have a single party control both the President, Senate and Congress we are in trouble. We need balance and we haven't had that in a long time.

Idk, I thought "Star Wars" was a good idea, it would effectively make Nuclear weapons obsolete...

Only problem was that at the time, that's all it could be: A good idea. The technology wasn't there yet.

However, it proved to be an excellent bluff to the Soviets.

At that time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Which is probably the best mix to have looking back on it all. Anytime you have a single party control both the President, Senate and Congress we are in trouble. We need balance and we haven't had that in a long time.

thats my view as well, I voted Obama as president, but all Republican Congress...

That was Congress. Reagan said the debt was one of the greatest disappointments of his presidency.

it is actually interesting. when you have a Republican congress and a democrat president spending is thrifty. Sees Clinton's Term.

Have same party president and and congress and spending is high.

Have a Republican president and a Democrat congress spending gets astronomical.


The problem is the American people elect the wrong group to congress and the wrong group to the presidency too often to balance the budget.

At that time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Which is probably the best mix to have looking back on it all. Anytime you have a single party control both the President, Senate and Congress we are in trouble. We need balance and we haven't had that in a long time.

I love republican congress democrat president.
the congress wont let the president waste money on social programs and the democrat president wont go on any expensive wars.

I love republican congress democrat president.
the congress wont let the president waste money on social programs and the democrat president wont go on any expensive wars.

On top of that the government gets shut down every once in awhile. It's a win win.... :)

On top of that the government gets shut down every once in awhile. It's a win win.... :)

aye.