Printable View
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437241]MB the answer is simple but you choose to ignore it by looking at the effects and not the cause of the problem, which is career politicians. The Founding Fathers did not intend for folks to come to Washington and STAY, but to come serve a term then return to their "day job" back home. The simple answer is term limits for both the House and Senate, but I doubt the political will exists.[/QUOTE]But bigger than Dallas we sure as hell agree on this!
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437248]You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.[/QUOTE]Isn't Jackson in a similair situation as you?
And by the way, fuckk Obama care. Its worthless beyond belief. It was written by the same insurance companies it was supposed to rein in.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437248]You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jackson;437229]3. Without detailing my business activities here in Argentina, Rock knows fully well that his [I]"contributing nothing"[/I] comment is completely erroneous. In addition, given that I pay Argentina import taxes, Argentine sales taxes, Argentine utility taxes, Argentine property taxes, and Argentine income taxes, one could hardly claim that I am "[I]leeching[/I]" by living here.
Once again, facts aren't important to liberals, only emotion is important.
[/QUOTE]The majority of successful leftist businessmen, whether in the United States, Venezuela, or Argentina, take advantage of the system. They either want to justify that they're the good guys in their own minds, or they're just plain corrupt.
So, Rock Harders, do the subsidies that benefit you exceed the Argentine taxes you pay? And, on the subject of taxes, do you pay yours correctly? Are you correctly reporting your Argentine income on your Argentine and US tax returns? Are you paying US income tax on all the interest and rental income received by your Argentine company and any loans you've taken out, as required by US law? Or are you another lefty like Leona Helmsley who believes only stupid people pay high taxes, and money grows on trees to provide subsidies for your business?
Reverend, Please note that your beloved Democrats are as responsible as anyone for corporate welfare. And the "teabaggers" that you malign are the ones who want to STOP handouts to big business. I agree with you about high prices in the drug industry, which result from anti-competitive practices and patent laws that are too generous.
Well here we are in the Brave New World of ObamaCare.
I have to laugh at both the insurance companies and the hospital corporations as they reap what they have sown by jumping on the ObamaCare bandwagon.
When ObamaCare was being pushed through:
The hospital corporations were on board because they would no longer have to do cost shifting from those who paid for care and the indigent care they were FORCED to provide via their emergency room services and the admissions which followed because now everyone would have insurance coverage.
The insurance companies were on board because they were about to receive the gift of everyone being FORCED to have comprehensive coverage rather they needed it or not thereby providing them with new clients at higher premium rates.
Now reality is setting in with more than 6 Million folks losing their bare bones catastrophic policies but then getting a pass by Obama, the young invincibles who are to pay the bulk of the premiums are not signing up for coverage, and the majority of those getting on ObamaCare are the older and sicker folks requiring immediate outlays of funds for treatment. Bottom line is there is no money in the kitty to pay claims. Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437253]Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?[/QUOTE]From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.
The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437257]From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.
The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.[/QUOTE]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437259]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.[/QUOTE]Then you and Jackson agree. He has held out the health care system in Argentina, part of which is paid with tax proceeds, as a model for the USA.
This is just the opinion of one "right wing" lackey, but I'd have no problem subsidizing other people's healthcare to some extent, provided the money were spent efficiently. In the USA it's not. Obamacare is doubling down on a failed system.
"James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.".
Our Founders' constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.".
[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/123113-684710-all-powerful-government-now-stomps-on-americans-rights.htm#ixzz2pBzGzwRD[/URL].
Don B.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437259]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.[/QUOTE]Hypothetically speaking, [u]IF[/u] you had any partners in your business, then it would be fair to say that your partners also get "credit" for paying part of these taxes, given that they were business expenses that reduced the profits to all partners.
Just say'n...
Jax
[b]Top 5 O-Care stories to watch[/b]
“The healthcare law faced a very tough year in 2013, but that could pale in comparison to what happens in 2014.”
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/193776-top-five-obamacare-stories-to-watch-in-2014[/url]
And, since Democrats (Like WT 69) take so much joy from talking about how ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While it's true they both “individual mandate” it’s not the same thing.
Massachusetts facts:
Massachusetts has the [url=http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/12/insurance-premiums-mass-expensive]highest insurance cost in the nation;[/url]
Half of primary care doctors and 55% of specialists are not taking new patients and [url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/12/why-hard-find-doctor/AZmAhh8DJowD63cIVF0vPO/story.html]wait time for an appointment[/url] is increasing.
Regardless of the name calling by those on the left 2014 is going to be a long year for ObamaCare, and we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.
[s]Just another "right wing lackey” report.[/s]
All the lame fearmongering and attacks have failed to stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, that moves America forward in expanding access to healthcare, banning exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and reducing medical bankruptcies. This is the solid foundation of the ACA that ensures it is here to stay, because most Americans support the core provisions of the new law.
Republicans jump from one myopic point to another, hoping to rile up Americans. What a laugh. Truly pathetic, but this is what we have come to expect from them. In 2014, things will become smoother after the implementation bumps, and expect more and more people to tire of the attacks. People will want concrete proposals on how to improve the law. And they'll want focus on other issues, too.
Notice how Republicans don't contrast the ACA with their failed voucher proposal. That's because a voucher proposal, while ideologically pleasing to some, would not have and will not reform healthcare the way the core provisions of the ACA do.
The hardship exemption for those who had their plans cancelled is only for one year. They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.
[QUOTE=Esten;437271]They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.[/QUOTE]Yea, that's going to go over like a lead balloon.
I can just hear the Millennials now: [I]"What! Obamacare isn't FREE? You mean that I have to PAY even if I don't want it!"[/I]
Thanks,
Jax
There's an article in this month's Reason Magazine that I wish I could link to, for the benefit of Reverend Black Shirt and WT69, but it's not on the web. Reason, by the way, is hard core libertarian. They hate Republicans as much as Democrats. (I lean Republican because it's more important to me that government stay out of my pocket, versus out of my bedroom).
Anyway, they provide examples of how financial companies have corrupted or swayed politicians. And the politicians are Democrats. Republicans tried to do away with the estate (death) tax. It's both unfair, and the costs associated with the tax exceed the actual amount raised by it. The heavy fire power to keep the tax in place came not from left wing idealists, but rather from life insurance companies. Life insurance companies benefit heavily from the estate tax, because the death tax is not levied on benefits, and also because benefits can be used to avoid having to sell the family business or family farm when someone dies.
A second example was William Hambrecht, founder of a couple of investment banking firms. He put Paul Pelosi Jr., Nancy's son, on his firm's payroll. He also put Pelosi and her husband into initial public offerings (IPO's) where she could flip shares and make big profits. [b](Sound familiar Esten?)[/b] So when Hambrecht wanted to push through a change in regulations for IPO's, Pelosi was at hand to help influence Barney Frank and other members of the House Financial Services Committee.
It bears repeating, you should cease your continual bitching about the Tea Party, as they're the only ones out there trying to stop this bull shit.
There is plenty of political corruption on both sides, Democrat and Republican. Ever see anyone, Democrat or Republican, who went to either the House or Senate poor but did not leave rich?
Term limits will not solve all the problems but it would make the politicians to expensive to keep buying every few years and who knows maybe we find a few honest politicians. I know it's an oxymoron!
Reminds me of a joke about politicians my grandfather told me.
Farmer takes a jug of moonshine, a Bible and a $20 gold piece and places them on a counter in his barn. He calls his son who is turning 18 over and tells him to go into the barn and to select what he wants from the items on the counter. The farmer tells his son he will know what his son will be when he makes a man by his selection.
The son enters the barn and sees the jug of moonshine, the Bible and the $20 gold piece. The son thinks about these items for a moment and then takes a swing of the moonshine and puts the jug under one arm, puts the $20 gold piece in his pocket and the Bible under the other arm and walks our of the barn.
The farmer see's his son, shakes his head and swears. My boy is going to be a damn politician!
Monger on.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437275]There's an article in this month's Reason Magazine that I wish I could link to, for the benefit of Reverend Black Shirt and WT69, but it's not on the web. Reason, by the way, is hard core libertarian. They hate Republicans as much as Democrats. (I lean Republican because it's more important to me that government stay out of my pocket, versus out of my bedroom).
Anyway, they provide examples of how financial companies have corrupted or swayed politicians. And the politicians are Democrats. Republicans tried to do away with the estate (death) tax. It's both unfair, and the costs associated with the tax exceed the actual amount raised by it. The heavy fire power to keep the tax in place came not from left wing idealists, but rather from life insurance companies. Life insurance companies benefit heavily from the estate tax, because the death tax is not levied on benefits, and also because benefits can be used to avoid having to sell the family business or family farm when someone dies.
A second example was William Hambrecht, founder of a couple of investment banking firms. He put Paul Pelosi Jr., Nancy's son, on his firm's payroll. He also put Pelosi and her husband into initial public offerings (IPO's) where she could flip shares and make big profits. [b](Sound familiar Esten?)[/b] So when Hambrecht wanted to push through a change in regulations for IPO's, Pelosi was at hand to help influence Barney Frank and other members of the House Financial Services Committee.
It bears repeating, you should cease your continual bitching about the Tea Party, as they're the only ones out there trying to stop this bull shit.[/QUOTE]Why don't we just say, that if we really want to dig for dirt in every level on the poliitcal front, the corruption, nepotism, and the insider deals could fill up the Grand Canyon? Whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Party affiliation is not a vital issue for me. I have always consider myself a practical compassionate conservative. On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.
The fact is that in our political system, CORPORATE / BIG BUSINESS controls our electoral process and the resultant government. This is the CORRUPTION phase I highlighted in my previous post. Legislation are enacted to allow illegal activities to be legitimate. Even so, banks are paying record fines. Who do you think has the means & power to do that? Poor people, uneducated people, low income workers, undocumented workers? What do you think? One thought, wealth (not all) is generated on the backs of the toiling class. Next time you put on your trousers, give a 10 second silent prayer for the garment workers in Bangladesh. And also before you light up that cigar, or splash some whisky down your throat.
People seem to think that they have alot of control of their lives. Obviously, money helps. But only up to a point. More than 50% or more of what you do is control by marketing forces that tells us what to buy, eat, entertain, laugh or cry. And even where to go. Am I full of shit? Perhaps. Just look at the row of pills that you are taking everyday. How did you become this way, why do you need them?
Ok, enough for today.
[QUOTE=RevBS;437277]Next time you put on your trousers, give a 10 second silent prayer for the garment workers in Bangladesh. [/QUOTE]That's one thing we agree on, 100%. It's incredible how people get by in Bangladesh, India, sub Saharan Africa, etc. I get sick and tired of hearing how unequal and unfair the USA is, when most here are so much better off than most of the rest of the world.
This is for you guys;.
[URL]http://www.policymic.com/articles/77877/13-problems-only-libertarians-will-understand-in-gifs[/URL]
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437259]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.[/QUOTE]Here, Here..Sounds like you are Canadian.
[QUOTE=RevBS;437277]Why don't we just say, that if we really want to dig for dirt in every level on the poliitcal front, the corruption, nepotism, and the insider deals could fill up the Grand Canyon? Whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Party affiliation is not a vital issue for me. I have always consider myself a practical compassionate conservative. On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.
[highlight]Am I full of shit? [/highlight][/QUOTE]In a word, [B]YES![/B] :D
[QUOTE=RevBS;437277]On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.[/QUOTE]I thought the Obama inner circle was the "[I]Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight[/I]"?
Just a few examples...
Fast and Furious?
Spying on Reporters?
IRS Political Targeting?
Benghazi?
Syria?
The ACA rollout?
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.
Thanks,
Jax.
[B]“Phased implementation” or “Death Spiral”?[/B]
"It's crucial to the success of ObamaCare that 40% of the signups have to be in the 35 and younger group. Those consumers don't use healthcare and their premiums are needed to offset the people who are signing up now in the gold and platinum plans. Without the young people, insurers will be paying out significantly more than they're taking in in premiums and we get the ObamaCare Death Spiral.
Without those young people rates for 2015 will be based on 2014 actual performance and they will go up dramatically. It's fun to note that rates for 2015 will be available in the September. October time frame next year, just before the mid. Term elections.".
Also:
"Businesses will inform their employees of their plans around the middle of 2014, just before the midterm elections. Many businesses will alter their operations to fall below the mandate threshold. Others will simply drop coverage and pay the penalty. This will be a shock for most people, especially since most Americans have health insurance through their employer. That this shock could come just weeks before the midterm elections will create a nightmare for Democrats on the ballot. ".
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437242]Mongers-.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/obamacare-rallies-from-botched-debut-as-sign-ups-reach-2-million.html[/URL]
Two million now enrolled in "Obamacare".[/QUOTE]Nice gimmick, huh?
You pass a law that destroys people's existing insurance policies, then you claim victory when some of them sign up for more expensive Obamacare insurance.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28925[/ATTACH]
[S]Proudly detracting from the leftwing delusional fantasy.[/S]
[QUOTE=Punter127;437289]In a word, [B]YES![/B] :D[/QUOTE]Ate some Tom Yum Goong.
I understand some people like the illusion of socialized and or affordable healthcare but obamacare isn't that. Its a farce.
All in all, the numbers don't lie.
[URL]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/529f386569bedd1b34e32de8-538/obama-approval-rating.jpg[/URL]
[QUOTE=Jackson;437273]I can just hear the Millennials now: [I]"What! Obamacare isn't FREE? You mean that I have to PAY even if I don't want it!"[/I][/QUOTE]That's right, it's called [I]personal responsibility[/I]. That's how Republicans described it when they came up with the idea of the individual mandate. The Affordable Care Act is based on a Republican concept.
Check out what Romney said in 2005:
[QUOTE]"I don't like calling it universal coverage," he told me last week. "That smacks of Hillarycare. But I do think we've come up with a way to get everybody covered through the free-market system." Romney's way is not new: policy wonks call it an "individual mandate" system, but the Governor doesn't like that term either. "I call it a personal responsibility system," he said.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"We can't have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay,' " says Romney, a Republican who says he might run for president in 2008.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/mitt-romneys-individual-mandate[/URL]
[QUOTE=Jackson;437292]I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things Jax.[/QUOTE]That Obama would be kicked out of office, and be riding a scooter on Beach Road with Punter 127.
[URL]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514[/URL]
Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.
While Obama was raising taxes big time on successful small businesses and individuals last year, Democrats were passing $40 billion in tax exemptions for NASCAR, rum distillers and renewable energy firms. Actually all the Democrats on the Senate committee that attached this amendment to the tax bill voted in favor of the pork, but half the Republicans did too. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones out there fighting crony capitalism.
What's wrong WT69, cat got your tongue?
Some expired, but some didn't.
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/02/from-nascar-to-wind-power-congress-just-let-55-tax-breaks-expire/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-juicy-tax-breaks-corporations-enjoy-public-cant-touch[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/economy/companies-exploit-tax-break-for-asset-exchanges-trial-evidence-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437304][URL]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514[/URL]
Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.
While Obama was raising taxes big time on successful small businesses and individuals last year, Democrats were passing $40 billion in tax exemptions for NASCAR, rum distillers and renewable energy firms. Actually all the Democrats on the Senate committee that attached this amendment to the tax bill voted in favor of the pork, but half the Republicans did too. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones out there fighting crony capitalism.
What's wrong WT69, cat got your tongue?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437306]Some expired, but some didn't.[/QUOTE]Don't count the chickens before they're hatched. Your Washington Post link says Harry Reid (Democrat, Senate Majority Leader) tried to get them extended last month and will try again to do that this year, retroactive to January 1, 2014.
This shows the wisdom of eliminating special write-offs and tax breaks and instituting a flat tax, which I believe is an idea you have supported on this board.
Wouldn't that be the Southern Democrats? If you check our history, the Southern Democrats views were more Republican than Democratic. Yes, it has changed some, but not in all of them.
I don't think Obama has any white Good Ole Boy Cronies in the South.
How many black drivers are there?
NASCAR is kind of like the Republican Party. They keep going around in circles and can't find their asses.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437304][URL]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514[/URL]
Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.
While Obama was raising taxes big time on successful small businesses and individuals last year, Democrats were passing $40 billion in tax exemptions for NASCAR, rum distillers and renewable energy firms. Actually all the Democrats on the Senate committee that attached this amendment to the tax bill voted in favor of the pork, but half the Republicans did too. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones out there fighting crony capitalism.
What's wrong WT69, cat got your tongue?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437308]NASCAR is kind of like the Republican Party. They keep going around in circles and can't find their asses.[/QUOTE]Yes, a party with tight discipline, a strong leader and a clear view of what it wants to accomplish can make dramatic changes. Like the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in the USSR.
Fortunately the Democrats probably won't win the House and 60 spots in the Senate in 2014.
Oh, I forgot, actually they only need 51 votes in the Senate as long as Harry Reid is majority leader.
Sorry, I know I'm being rough on you, but you shouldn't have said bad things about NASCAR. If I just let that go you'd be slamming professional wrestling, tractor pulls and cock fights next.
[B][size=3]Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun[/size][/B]
[QUOTE=ChiefCraig]If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.”[/QUOTE]"Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he's changed his mind.".
[QUOTE=ChiefCraig]Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.
[highlight]I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.[/highlight][/QUOTE]Graig took over in Detroit in October and it was common to see signs on roads coming into the city that had been posted by police that read "Enter at your own risk". 911 response time was measured in hours if the police bothered to respond at all.
A recent study from Quinnipiac University concludes that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.
Summarized:
[i][b]Restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits drive murder rates up;.
Restrictions on carry permits increase murder rates;.
Assault weapons bans have no effect on murder rates.[/i][/b]
I would call this proof that progressives and anti-gun advocates are out to control people not guns. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel-good remedy" for progressives who refuse to address the real issues surrounding gun violence.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437304][URL]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514[/URL]
Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.[/QUOTE]This article is from the Wall Street Journal, a shill medium for Wall Street under the same corporate umbrella as Fox News. I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. They should be happy they are still raking it in hand over fist. Writers at WSJ are PAID to write anti-government, anti-Democrat material.
There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people. Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? That one does smell of pork. Although, I don't agree that "pork" is always a bad thing. Whether it's Democrat or Republican, if a bill creates jobs or helps middle class Americans, there is merit to it.
Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.
[QUOTE=Punter127;437311][B]Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun[/B][/QUOTE]The problem is when BAD people carry a gun.
So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.
We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.
[QUOTE=Esten;437313]I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. [/QUOTE]Yes, but thanks to Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) they still have their carried interest. Your party has historically been in the pocket of Wall Street. Just look at the campaign contributions. This has changed somewhat since near the end of Obama's first term, after the investment bankers and hedge fund managers realized how incompetent their donees were.
[QUOTE=Esten;437313]Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? [/QUOTE]Citibank settled for what, $250 million? While J P Morgan is on the hook for $10 billion+. What's the difference? Citibank pays off Democrats with high paying jobs, while J P Morgan's CEO criticized the Obama Administration. It's like the $5 billion lawsuit the Obama administration filed against Standard & Poors, for the ratings on debt securities S&P supplied before the mortgage crisis. Moody's did the same thing. However, Standard & Poor's downgraded USA Debt at a sensitive time for Obama, before the 2012 election, while Moody's did not. And Warren Buffet (Democrat) owned a big chunk of Moody's. So Standard & Poors gets hit with a lawsuit that threatens its very existence, even though it's the largest of only 3 significant rating agencies in the USA. Hey, Buffet likes competitive moats, and I guess having his only real competitor disappear would be a big plus. Finally how about the way Democrat politicians, including Obama, encourage the IRS to go after the Tea Party. Your party has its favorites and isn't ashamed of it.
[QUOTE=Esten;437313] There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps??? Isn't it obvious that government decisions should be evaluated on merits? We can argue about whether government should invest in renewable energy, but regardless the way the Obama administration is approaching this is like flushing money down the toilet. Very few jobs were created and the effects on carbon emissions were negligible.
[QUOTE=Esten;437313]Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.[/QUOTE]I agree with you about the abortions and the Church, am an agnostic on guns, and know that you're naive about Big Oil. Truly Big Oil is taxed more heavily than the rest of American industry. "Medium-sized oil", by taking advantage of the percentage depletion deduction and by borrowing money and re-investing all its profits in additional drilling can avoid taxes better than companies in most other industries. All companies should be put on a level playing field.
In any event, the politicians out there who aren't indebted to anyone, like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, are Republicans. Tea Party Republicans. Your guys have been bought off, lock stock and barrel.
[B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]
[QUOTE=Esten;437314]The problem is when BAD people carry a gun.
So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.
We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.[/QUOTE]Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.
There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, [B] period.[/B] The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry. The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.
BTW how many of the recent mass shootings would have been avoided by expanded background checks?
Democrats shot down an amendment in the last failed gun bill that would have provided funding to help deal with the mentally ill, so you might want to check and see why Democrats have been less than enthusiastic about dealing with that issue. Why is it we can't deal with problems like this on an issue by issue bases, why do the Democrats always insist on an all encompassing universal plan? (Can you say ObamaCare?)
If your goal is to just keep guns from "bad people" (which it's not) perhaps you could give an explanation as to why the federal government won't allow individuals to access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For example if I want to sell a gun and you want to buy my gun, why won't the government let me check and see if you are legally eligible to own a gun? A simple "eligible" or "not eligible" answer is all that's needed. No responsible gun owner wants to sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun, but the government refuses individual access to NICS, why?
Another interesting question is why do we have such a low prosecution rate of ineligible people who try to buy guns?
The Democrats haven't pushed for enforcement of current laws, they haven't dealt with the mentally ill issue, and they haven't opened up NICS on a voluntary bases. Why you ask, it's simple, because they're more interested in their political agenda then they are in dealing with crime.
[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;437317][B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]
Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.
There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, [B] period.[/B] The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry.
[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/QUOTE]You just put it all in a nut shell. It won't happen in our lifetime!
[QUOTE=Punter127;437317][B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]
Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.[/QUOTE]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.
Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.
Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.
[QUOTE]Although Craig supports having more legal gun owners, he has also emphasized confiscating illegal weapons. On Thursday, he said that in Detroit, each time they take an illegal gun off the street, they've likely prevented a robbery or shooting down the line. He also supports banning assault weapons, regulating magazines and ammunition and enforcing tighter background checks at gun shows, according to the Detroit News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/james-craig-detroit-guns_n_4536332.html[/QUOTE]
Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.
I grew up with in a rural area and there were guns every were. I had a 4-10 shotgun in my room when I was lets say 7 or 8. It wasn't there for protection but my room had a corner that didn't have a gun. I started hunting when I was lets say 10. I really can't remember. With my friends we hunted rabbits, squirrels but mostly we just shot birds. Now I will not allow guns or ammo in my house. This debate on gun control isn't much of a debate. I have never heard the issue debated. How could any one be aginst a very in depth background check. A background check that would prevent felons, spouse abusers or the mentally ill from getting a gun permit.
Lets just think if the stop and frisk law was in effect and enforced in Chicago. If a resident wanted a gun for protection then get a license to have a firearm, and get a license for the firearm. If someone is stopped an frisked and they didn't have either of these permits...off to jail you go.
Second and third offenders would be in jail for a long time rather than on the street.
[QUOTE=Esten;437332]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.
Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.
Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.
Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;437332]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad?[/quote] Really? So what if they're [u]not allowed[/u] to carry a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Or are you suggesting that expanded background checks will keep all bad guys from getting guns?
[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people. [/quote] I'm all for keeping guns from bad guys, lets start by enforcing current law.
[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Guess what Chief Craig also supports?[/quote] The point about Chief Craig is that his opinion is changing, I suspect he will see the light on the other gun issues as well in time.
[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.[/QUOTE] I haven't told any lies and you fucking well know it. My remark was [i]“The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.” [/i]I did not say they were leery of background checks, but they are leery of the government.
And there are no “loopholes” in the background check law, it was intended to address dealer gun sales and it does just that, it was never intended to be for private sales. What you are advocating is an expansion of the law.
Your 80-90% number is from “push polling”, people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation. And the surveys asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works. Do you know how the current system works? Ever bought a gun?
Sample “push poll”question; [i]“In order to prevent criminals, terrorists and the mentally deranged from easily obtaining firearms, do you support or oppose Legislation that requires background checks be completed on every person that attempts to acquire a firearm?”[/i] Who would answer no? I wouldn't have a problem with background checks if you could do it without a gun registry, but I don't think that's possible. Even the ACLU agrees.
[quote]ACLU’s Chris Calabrese spoke of privacy and civil liberties concerns regarding universal background check legislation in an interview in the Daily Caller:“... the current proposal ... raises two significant concerns. ... [b]The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. ... The [Reid] legislation says simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer. ... That kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a [u]new government database.[/u]”
Calabrese explained the ACLU’s second [u]“significant concern,”[/u] that Reid’s legislation creates “a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.”[/b][/quote]
If I'm wrong about the gun registry why won't you elaborate on how you can enforce the background check on individual gun sale without a gun registry? You've ignored this question before. I think this is another “if you like your policy you can keep you policy. Period”.
Why haven't you called for individual access to the NICS?
Why don't you fess up and tell everybody that your real goal is a broad ban on guns?
[b][NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/b]