General Political Thread

[KevinG]

Well it looks like we are going have another fight over the Debt Ceiling!  I am certainly glad the GOP likes to play hostage with the full faith and credit of the US government.  

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/usa-fiscal-debt-idUSL1N0CDIBH20130321

 

Ugh.  

 

[LouieB]

Not to reignite the gun control debate here, but I found this article in the NY Times yesterday kind of interesting.  Clearly no meaningful controls of any sort are going to be forthcoming in the wake of the Newtown (or any past or future) shooting.

 

LouieB

 

April 6, 2013

Don’t Know Much About Gun Laws

By JOEL BENENSON and KATIE CONNOLLY

 

   

 

IN polls, a slight majority of Americans consistently say that we need better enforcement of our gun laws. But there’s a problem with that: many don’t really know what our gun laws are.

A large number think that federal laws require a background check for every gun purchase and that they ban high-capacity magazines. If these Americans knew that we didn’t have such laws — laws they so fervently wish to enforce — their beliefs about the correct course of Congressional action might be very different.

In a nationwide poll our firm recently conducted for the Democratic National Committee, we asked 800 voters what action they want our government to take: “enforce current gun laws more strictly but not pass new laws” or “pass new gun laws in addition to enforcing current laws more strictly.” It came as no surprise to us that they chose better enforcement by 50 percent to 43 percent. (The remainder responded “neither” or “don’t know.”)

But in the same poll, 87 percent of voters, including nearly 90 percent of gun owners, said they support background checks for all gun sales. Significant majorities of voters and of gun owners also told us they support banning military-style assault weapons along with the high-capacity magazines that enable those weapons to fire dozens of rounds without reloading.

To dig deeper into this confusion, we introduced a new series of questions. We asked this same group of voters whether or not specific laws were already on the books. Of the 50 percent of people who prefer enforcement over new laws — over half of whom are gun owners — 48 percent told us that federal laws prohibit the purchase of a weapon privately or at a gun show without a background check, while 10 percent simply admitted not knowing the rules. In other words, about 6 out of 10 people who believe we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws don’t realize that those laws are far weaker than they think. And just under half of those who want better enforcement don’t know that military-style assault weapons are, in fact, legal.

A clear majority said they believe that the sale of guns to people on the terrorist watch list is banned. Another 29 percent said they don’t know. Such sales are not banned, and the Government Accountability Office has reported that in 2010 alone 247 people on the terrorist watch list passed a background check and legally purchased guns.

Similarly, 33 percent believe that federal law requires authorities to be notified when people purchase large amounts of ammunition in a short period — also not the case — and 42 percent don’t know whether it is illegal to buy ammunition over the Internet — it isn’t.

The notion that all we need is better enforcement of our current federal laws has been a core argument of the gun lobby for years in its fight against sensible restrictions on guns in our communities. But that argument is a straw man. It masks the fact that many Americans don’t really know what gun laws are on the books and falsely construes that to mean they don’t want common-sense gun laws passed — when they clearly do. What Americans strongly believe, and what is at the core of the president’s reform agenda, is that with rights come responsibilities.

Americans don’t believe changing the rules will prevent every murder or every act of mass violence. Rules will always be broken. Some people will always cheat on their taxes. Some people will always speed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have common-sense rules like speed limits or an income tax. Americans agree gun limits are needed, and at the very least, they expect a rational debate and a vote on it. It’s time to prove them right.

 

[Hixter]

In a nationwide poll our firm recently conducted for the Democratic National Committee

Say no more.

[JUDE]

I joined the NRA last week.

 

I've been involved in hunting & shooting for over 30 years and this is the first time I've felt compelled to join.

[Winston Legthigh]

I joined the NRA last week.

 

I've been involved in hunting & shooting for over 30 years and this is the first time I've felt compelled to join.

 

What does membership confer?

[Hixter]

What does membership confer?

 

 

Member benefits:

 

24/7 defense of your Second Amendment freedoms

Official NRA members-only Shooter's cap

Your choice of monthly NRA magazines

Membership card and decal

Insurance for you and your guns

Invitations to "Friends of NRA" dinners, other special events and more...

[LouieB]

Those Friends of NRA dinners must be the safest places in town, or the scariest, depending on your point of view.

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

Obama's new budget proposal cuts social security by $100 billion.

 

I don't like it.

[LouieB]

No one likes it. So what should we cut? (By the time this is done, those things will probably be off the table.)

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Obama's new budget proposal cuts social security by $100 billion.

 

I don't like it.

 

For as outwardly dumb as the GOP seems they sure are shrewd in ginning up this deficit "problem" in order to get a Democrat proposing entitlement cuts in a down economy.

[Guest Jules]

He should cut social security by 100%.

[NoJ]

But what about the social contract for a safety net Jules?

 

On another subject.....Hi there!

[Guest Jules]

Be your own safety net.

 

Hey man.

[NoJ]

I'd rather be here now and let the Man take care of me later.

 

Ciao baby!

[KevinG]

Jules idiotic statement notwithstanding, I can't believe PBO has brought this as an option when the people on the other side of this debate flatly refuse to close tax loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits overseas.  So I guess it is on the backs of the poor and middle class that solve the deficit "problem."  

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Jules idiotic statement notwithstanding, I can't believe PBO has brought this as an option when the people on the other side of this debate flatly refuse to close tax loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits overseas.  So I guess it is on the backs of the poor and middle class that solve the deficit "problem."  

 

What middle class?

Ain't no such thing anymore.

[Hixter]

I can't believe PBO has brought this as an option when the people on the other side of this debate flatly refuse to close tax loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits overseas.  So I guess it is on the backs of the poor and middle class that solve the deficit "problem."  

You mean corporations like Apple, Google and Amazon? They are big donors to Obama and other Democratic Party candidates and they want to hold on to their money just as much as rich Republicans do.

[ih8music]

Jules idiotic statement notwithstanding, I can't believe PBO has brought this as an option when the people on the other side of this debate flatly refuse to close tax loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits overseas. So I guess it is on the backs of the poor and middle class that solve the deficit "problem."

It's called compromise. Increase tax revenue and cut spending. What a novel idea. Just because the "other side" isn't interested in it doesn't make it bad policy.

[lost highway]

There is no history of a major nation taking austerity measures and seeing economic benefits as a result.

 

Also if you don't believe in social security then you don't believe in one of the forces behind middle class stability in the last 7 decades.  It also means you don't believe in socioeconomic class.

[uncool2pillow]

I've made this point before.  Gen X folks (under 50 / over, say 30) should start a movement to push retirement age up to 70 by the time we're there.  Most of us have benefited from a time of relative peace (at least when we were prime military age)  and prosperity.  Our sacrifice could be working a bit longer.  Save social security and medicare a shitload of money.

[Hixter]

Gen X folks (under 50 / over, say 30) should start a movement to push retirement age up to 70 by the time we're there. 

I think that's already in the cards.

 

Most of us have benefited from a time of relative peace (at least when we were prime military age)  and prosperity.

What about those of us who gave several years of our lives to military service?

[Magnetized]

I think that's already in the cards.

 

What about those of us who gave several years of our lives to military service?

Were you drafted or did you enlist? People enter into military service all the time for a variety of reasons. Some out of a sense of moral obligation or patriotism, but some make a reasoned decision and accept the tradeoffs (skills acquisition, decent pay and retirement after 20 years are just a few) as part of the bargain. 

[uncool2pillow]

I'd give an exemption for combat veterans.

[caliber66]

Military veterans who stay in service until (military) retirement are very well compensated for the rest of their lives, and can begin collecting retirement benefits as early as the age of 37.

[Guest Jules]

I've made this point before.  Gen X folks (under 50 / over, say 30) should start a movement to push retirement age up to 70 by the time we're there.  Most of us have benefited from a time of relative peace (at least when we were prime military age)  and prosperity.  Our sacrifice could be working a bit longer.  Save social security and medicare a shitload of money.

 

I'm trying to move it to 45.

 

 

There is no history of a major nation taking austerity measures and seeing economic benefits as a result.

 

Also if you don't believe in social security then you don't believe in one of the forces behind middle class stability in the last 7 decades.  It also means you don't believe in socioeconomic class.

 

I believe in it.  It's just a mess, though.  I'd be in favor of raising the cap.