HeloDude

So you concur that the rate changes (ie not constant), as I said? I'm glad you are in agreement. I'm also glad you realize that Pawman was correct--we get a significant portion of a financed debt from foreign sources. Keep going--you're almost there!

You do realize that the percentage of debt owned by foreign countries/investors is not constant, right? No, of course you don't. When 'W' and the GOP ran up the deficit from 2001 to 2007 it looks like the foreign debt (as a percentage of total debt) went from 30% to 43%...sounds like during this time (and afterwards), we were asking foreign countries to fund a higher percentage of our debt compared to years past. It looks like it has stayed constant as a percentage from 2008 to 2011, but that just means that the foreign debt value itself still greatly increased because the debt has increased, or should I say more correctly, it has exploded. BL: We rely very heavily on foreign countries/investors to fund our out of control debt and I don't see this stopping anytime soon, and if does, we are screwed. https://seekingalpha....u-s-bond-yields

Then I think you need re-phrase what your wrote earlier concerning how if the Congressmen want to reign in spending then they shouldn't appropriate it in the first place. That's the problem with these big government programs (ie Obamacare), very hard to change/do away with once it's been passed and implemented. But let's be honest--big liberals like yourself love it. We're screwing the future generations.

So are you trying to say that every dollar spent by the federal government in each fiscal year was a result of specific appropriations made by the Congress the year prior to when it was spent?

Nsplayr, you still have yet to explain yourself--why do you still politically support a guy who wants to limit your freedoms? The President has told everyone what he wants, regardless of whether he gets what he wants or not. Is his liberal agenda more important to you than your freedoms and liberties?

Here's the deal with Nsplayr (as always, feel free to respond) as I see it: NSplayr may be a big gun guy, if he says so, I'll take him at his word. The problem I have is that for a year+ he kept on bragging how Obama and the Dems in Congress had not tried to get any new gun control legislation passed and thus calling Obama 'anti-gun' wasn't warranted...even though if you read what he said in the past about guns/gun control and what he said in the debates (also what was in the DNC platform), it was pretty clear to me what Obama and the Democratic Party would like to do. Now we have Obama, not having to face another election, and a recent tragedy to exploit, which now allows him and many more Dems to come out more freely and be up front in what they would like to do. How does this affect Nsplayr?? Well it goes against everything he was saying about Obama (concering guns) and possibly puts Nsplayr at odds with a President that he idolizes as a champion for liberal and big government causes. But yet, Nsplayr's only real repsponse to what has been said by Obama and top Dems is "well, I don't see anything happening due to the fact that there are still pro-gun Dems in the Senate and the House is still controlled by the GOP". NSplayr has said very little (if anything) about how this is a bad move his beloved Dems (Feinstein and Pelosi are not small fish in the Dem Party) or his beloved President. This only further suggests that Nsplayr is more than willing to stand by his guys no matter what, as long as they continue to push the liberal agenda. This is what happens when somebody blindly supports their political party no matter what--they are willing to sacrifice liberties in order to get what they want...in Nsplayr's situation, he gets a more liberal/big government society and all he has to do is be willing the sacrifice some of his freedoms and liberties. The folks blindly supporting the GOP is just as at fault on the other spectrum--ie The Patriot Act, increased debt for prescription drugs, etc. Would Romney have supported this anti-gun nonsense? Possibly as he did sign simillar legislation before, though he did say he would not have signed any new gun legislation whereas Obama said that he would. I have no doubt that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would never have signed any new gun legislation.

They can ask me about firearms all they want...doesn't mean I have to tell them anything.

Same thing can be said about the Democratic Party...unless suddenly a majority of Americans approve of the Obamacare Bill or the Gun Contol measures the Dems want to pass. Both parties are extreme in their own ways.

Since you're slow, I'm going to teach you what I teach my students before they transmit on the radio: Think about what you want to say, say it to yourself first, then key the mic and transmit. Read what I wrote in regards to how I stated that ''The Market' does respond to various changes in society...I listed 9-11 as an example. I would never give financial advice on here as I pay somebody to do that for me. And P.S.--natural disasters don't typically offer much 'advanced warning' either but they certainly can affect 'The Market'.

Just like 'panic buyers' when it comes to all the recent gun/ammo/mags purchases.

Hopefully you were compensated appropriately.

I think you should just give me your money to invest for you...I'd do pretty well picking stocks blindfolded compared to someone who thinks that the stock market/exchanges do not react to national/world events--whether induced by new laws and regulations, enemy attacks, natural disasters, etc. Here is a refresher of how 'The Market' reacted after the 9-11 attacks. I wonder who told 'The Market' to react in such a negative way?

I posted the S&W M&P15 a couple of months ago from Buds LE...$600 when it was all said and done. I'm sure once the air clears in a few months Buds LE section will once again have some pretty decent deals. If you become a big enough gun nut (like a few of us on here are), you start checking your favorite gun websites several times a day, always keeping an eye out for that awesome deal.

The collection of course that still lies at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico... Trust me, guys didn't panic buy because they heard what Feinstein was proposing (everybody knows where she stands/what she wants to do)...guys starting panicking because others starting buying quickly. It seemed to be something similar to a stock market crash. As for the synopsis you posted, I follow MAC very closely. I love his videos and he comes across as very knowledgable, fun, and to the point--class act all the way.

FIFY. Reid deliberately did not get a budget passed in the Senate...they can't filibuster a budget. Well, it all depends on whether the GOP will filibuster the bill if it tries to get through procedural hurdles first. I personally want it to go before a final vote...see where everybody stands. More importantly than that, I just want it to go somewhere and fast...that way it can die sooner rather than later and supply/demand will somewhat stabilize. I have no sympathy for anybody who got 'scared' and over-payed for an AR or AK, or for magazines for that matter. Those folks have had 2-3 years to buy almost anything at very reasonable prices and if they waited until they feared they couldn't own something that they didn't care to own earlier, then so be it. The time to buy/stock up is not when there is a 'scare' or when prices are high. What will be interesting to see is will this be a replay for the 2008 election when things cooled off a year later, or will this cause more people to constantly be buying?

Just saw this as well. Thank you for your service and leadership to our country. RIP

The townhall is a pretty conservative news source, but overall I think he makes some solid points. I disagree with the notion that Reid won't let it come to a vote though...the liberal base in the Senate really wants a chance at getting this through, or at a minimum getting a vote on it and then using it to vilify the Senators who vote against it, especially when the next shooting occurs. The author of the article correctly points out that the Red State Dems will have a hard time voting for anything even remotely close to what Feinstein is proposing (if anything at all) and the only GOP Senators I could see supporting the measure would be Collins from Maine and Kirk from Illinois. What it comes down to is that the majority of the country does not want any new gun bans. The latest Gallup poll even right after the recent shooting had a slim majority/plurality not favoring any new bans...and I'm sure that number will rise a little bit in the next several months. This along with the tax/debt issue will definitely make for an interesting news cycle after the new year.

Dude, the GOP was severely outgunned (pardon the pun) in 2009-2010 as the Dems had super-majorities in both houses and hence were able to force through the healthcare legislation without a single Republican vote. Very different landscape then compared to right now, especially since the GOP has a comfortable majority in the House. This isn't the tax/cliff issue where things will happen if both parties don't do anything. If no legislation goes through, the gun laws stay the same. The only thing in terms of banning that I could see even having a remote chance would be high capacity drums (50+ rounds)...and that would be just so the politicians can 'say' they did something, though we know it woud also not change anything in terms of cime.

So it's a political move...if I read you correctly. And if that's the case, he was always wanting to push for it, he was just waiting for the right time. Which goes along with what the gun folks have been saying for a while now--that he has always wanted to restrict/limit gun rights. Now to be fair, the President did say this in one of the debates, so it shouldn't come to a surprise to anybody with half a brain.

Hey--what happened to the President not pushing any new gun legislation?? And don't say the school shooting, else I'll bring up the Aurora shootings, all the killings in Chicago, etc...and not like any new gun bans would have prevented the shooting. Agree with your analysis though. From a political standpoint, I'm assuming Reid will allow Feinstein's Bill to at least come up for a vote? I hope it does.

The Republicans don't help their cause by acting like Democrats. If the GOP votes in any kind of ban, they are screwed as the 2nd Amendment often serves as THE single issue that gun folks use to determine who and who not to vote for. The GOP didn't make huge gains in 2010 by saying they changed their minds and now support Obamacare. Look at the Dem Senators up for re-election in 2014...places like SD, AR, AK, LA...dangerous votes to go against the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I hope legislation comes up for a vote in Jan/Feb--sooner this is killed, sooner the prices will come back down. My $.02

C'mon man--you can do better than that. I gave you an example of how the 14th Amendment didn't work in getting women the right to vote (gender issue), but now you say it will work in forcing States to recognize gay marriage (another gender issue). But going back to the 12-year old argument, just because it's not being contested in the courts doesn't mean the question isn't legitimate--why can a State set their own regulations as it pertains to age, but not gender when it comes to marriage? Personally I don't understand why people would want to live in a State which didn't support at least a majority of their values. You wouldn't see me ever voluntarily choosing to live in California or Massachusetts...and at that same time I would never want to live in Mississippi or Arkansas. However, I would never want to limit any States' Rights.

So what defines a human being as being able to be a 'consenting adult'? I've read the entire Consitution and I can't find it anywhere. Can it be that each individual State makes laws and regulations as to what age people can do what? For example, age to drive a car, drink alcohol, have consexual sex with a 30 year old--all set by each individual State. The only time the federal government can and should get involved is when it goes across State lines, federal installations, etc. So again, I ask--if a State can set their own regulations on the age of when people can marry, why can't they regulate who can get married as it pertains to gender? Or how many people can marry at one time (I have a feeling you're cool with this one)? As for the 14th Amendment, it makes sense to apply it to race as that is one of the main reasons is was written--one of the Reconstruction Amendments. If it applied to gender, then the country would not have needed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. I personally wish the country would use the Amendment process MUCH more often--that's what it's there for. People, mostly on the left, like arguing how The Constitution doesn't apply in certain areas because of changing times, changing cultures, etc....however, if what they wanted changed/added was that well supported, it would have very little trouble in getting an Amendment ratified. I guess it's easier to appoint activist judges who are liberal or conservative and then essentially give them the power of re-writing The Constitution. The problem with this is that it bites both sides in the ass sooner or later.

So a 12 year old no longer has 'equal protection' of a 'right'? Or is it just that no State allows 12 year olds to marry? And your toaster/dog point is moronic be because a 12 year old has Rights, but a toaster and dog do not. What it comes down to is that you're cool with States making laws you agree with it, but not cool with making laws you disagree with. Nothing under The Constituion says anything about age requirements when it comes into entering a contract.

True, but this should have been figured out a long time ago--both parties kicked the can down the road. And why didn't you list Reid in that mix? I thought he recessed the Senate yesterday?