Opinions/Discussions on Guns

GO IRISH!!!

Nashville Livin'!
Messages
3,695
Reaction score
428
I just don't understand this belief that the government will step in and solve ANYTHING.

Drugs, the airline industry, healthcare, the highway system, the tax code, the FCC. Name one thing the Federal Government has actually improved. Why is there such a belief that if the Government gets involved, things will get better?
 

brandonnash

New member
Messages
214
Reaction score
9
Your speaking in absolutes and distorting the arguments. Yes ofcourse there will be criminals, the thing is why must there be so many in america?

Why must there be so many criminals? I can't say for sure other than there will always be people who don't want to work honestly for a living.
My concern isn't with the general criminal population, but someone so hell bent on killing that they have absolutely zero regard for the laws of the land. Make all the laws you want and it will only take away from the lawful. The insane man that did the last killing was in state where there already was a ban on assault rifle, yet there was still an assault rifle there. Additionally, the guns that were legal to own were stolen from the owner. Those laws didn't stop him.




who believes this is the case?

I think you give this country too little credit if you believe it cannot recover from its mistakes -- it has a long and distinguished history of evolution.

As evidenced by the fewer shootings?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,583
Reaction score
20,034
No, what sounds foolish is someone who believes the government will snap their fingers, sign a new law making all the guns disappear and all the insane killers will turn themselves in to a treatment facility.

There will always be guns in america. There will always be criminals. If we want our children to be safe we have to defend them.

Defend them? That sounds like we should arm teachers, bus drivers, day care employees. How about we protect them with better gun laws, better mental health care and less violence being pushed thru video games and movies?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I just don't understand this belief that the government will step in and solve ANYTHING.

Drugs, the airline industry, healthcare, the highway system, the tax code, the FCC. Name one thing the Federal Government has actually improved. Why is there such a belief that if the Government gets involved, things will get better?

+1. Making things contraband or expanding bureaucacries very rarely work.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I just don't understand this belief that the government will step in and solve ANYTHING.

Drugs, the airline industry, healthcare, the highway system, the tax code, the FCC. Name one thing the Federal Government has actually improved. Why is there such a belief that if the Government gets involved, things will get better?


I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your post brought it to my mind:

I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the NRA and gun rights nuts, and their absolute refusal to even consider ANYTHING other than the absolutely unimpeded right to own any kind of weapon that strikes their fancy. You want to know what this country was founded on? It wasn't founded on the right to own any weapon you wanted, to keep you safe from some fictional tyrannical government. It was founded on people putting aside their personal agendas, and working together for the common good. More gun laws will not eliminate all gun violence, but they will cut down on some of it. By the same token: people who can prove themselves responsible have the right to own firearms. Both sides need to smarten up and find the middle ground.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I personally don't own a gun, and I've never really been robbed (in the US). But, for me, new gun laws will always have a tough, up-hill battle: each and every gun law puts law-abiding citizens at another weapons disadvantage versus the criminals.

To oversimplify: we can give the Good Guys 10 guns, and the Bad Guys 10 guns. Or, through gun laws, we can give the Good Guys no guns, and the Bad Guys 5 guns. I'd just rather have 10 on 10 rather than 0 on 5. But obviously there's no "right answer" here.
 

In Lou I Trust

Offseason gon' be long
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
188
To oversimplify: we can give the Good Guys 10 guns, and the Bad Guys 10 guns. Or, through gun laws, we can give the Good Guys no guns, and the Bad Guys 5 guns. I'd just rather have 10 on 10 rather than 0 on 5.

My exact thoughts. It's really THAT simple. The folks that don't see it this way **** me off.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I would rather give the good guys an unlimited supply of energy plus weapons, and the bad guys three.

Oh snap, if you did that you would have to be able tell the good guys from the bad guys!
 

Cogs

Active member
Messages
288
Reaction score
82
Look at statistics, 4 out of 5 gun murders happen in states that prohibit fire arm carry. Sorry, but it's the truth.
 

brandonnash

New member
Messages
214
Reaction score
9
Let's go your route. Good guys no guns. Bad guys have guns. Bad guy goes (insert location here) and shoots till he has 1 round left. Then kills himself. Good guy either 1. Dies 2. Hides and prays that he lives 3. Rushes the gunman unarmed and gets killed or wounded. That makes sense.

Then weeks later psycho #2 realizes he can do the same because no one has a weapon to stop him. Does same thing. Then psycho #3, 4, 5, etc.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Let's go your route. Good guys no guns. Bad guys have guns. Bad guy goes (insert location here) and shoots till he has 1 round left. Then kills himself. Good guy either 1. Dies 2. Hides and prays that he lives 3. Rushes the gunman unarmed and gets killed or wounded. That makes sense.

Then weeks later psycho #2 realizes he can do the same because no one has a weapon to stop him. Does same thing. Then psycho #3, 4, 5, etc.

I don't think anyone is advocating taking all guns away from the public. But I will take 20 guys(civilians with CCPs)with Sig pistols, over one guy with an AR15(bad guy), anyday.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your post brought it to my mind:

I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the NRA and gun rights nuts, and their absolute refusal to even consider ANYTHING other than the absolutely unimpeded right to own any kind of weapon that strikes their fancy. You want to know what this country was founded on? It wasn't founded on the right to own any weapon you wanted, to keep you safe from some fictional tyrannical government. It was founded on people putting aside their personal agendas, and working together for the common good. More gun laws will not eliminate all gun violence, but they will cut down on some of it. By the same token: people who can prove themselves responsible have the right to own firearms. Both sides need to smarten up and find the middle ground.

mmmHmmm...and how.

I'm on the gun nut side...I guess. I have stated what I think are the things that are doable. By doable I mean things we can propose that aren't so counter to the other side as to render discussion dead. Things we should talk about are capacity, waiting periods, on-the-gun limitations (cocking)...many others I havent thought of I'm sure...but Kmoose's response gets to the heart of the matter...there is no honor in compromise as defined by the fringes of both sides of any argument. We are significantly hand cuffed by special interest. Sooo, compromise, as an entering argument, means leave your lifetime "causers" and the media at home, and have common sense people move forward, and try to solve problems.

...And yes the Fed literally sucks at detailed legislation...yes I am a proponent of States solving these issues. I believe there is a way for the Fed to identify 5-10 points that state legislatures must address in order to receive pending Department of Education funding. Solutions must show statistical support, and be voted upon in the next gubenatorial election cycle. We need to force states to both meet Fed expectations, but also ensure the majority of their populace embraces the regulation....there is where LASTING compromise is found. And, yes you can get the ball rolling now, but I'd expect flux in states for 10 years. However, that process...I think thats how you get the Fed to do some management w/o making policy that is Equally crappy for everyone...
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
When I was in law school, I wrote a paper on gun control.l It followed all of the formal law-review conventions, including title and sub-title. The title was something like "Perspectives and Arguments About Gun Control." The sub-title was a quote from Dirty Harry--"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot" cited to Magum Force.

I was so proud of this scholarly treatise, which was about, if I recall, about 110 pages long and had about as many footnotes. So proud, in fact, that I took it to a federal district judge who I knew pretty well and asked him if he would like to read it. He politely declined, saying that his views on gun control were simply "throughout history there have been people who are *******s, and people who are not. The people who are not have always needed weapons to protect themselves from the *******s." He summed up the hundreds of hours of research I had done and the hundred or so pages I wrote in that one sentence. IrishHoustonian is in good company.
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your post brought it to my mind:

I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the NRA and gun rights nuts, and their absolute refusal to even consider ANYTHING other than the absolutely unimpeded right to own any kind of weapon that strikes their fancy. You want to know what this country was founded on? It wasn't founded on the right to own any weapon you wanted, to keep you safe from some fictional tyrannical government. It was founded on people putting aside their personal agendas, and working together for the common good. More gun laws will not eliminate all gun violence, but they will cut down on some of it. By the same token: people who can prove themselves responsible have the right to own firearms. Both sides need to smarten up and find the middle ground.

I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the gun control nuts and their absolute belief that they can prevent any law abiding citizen from owning any gun that state and federal government has determined to be legal just because they don't like those particular weapon(s). More gun control laws will not prevent another massacre. More gun control laws will prevent a NEW weapon from being used to commit another massacre.

Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Did those laws prevent the massacre at Sandy Hook? The massacre occurred because of carelessness on the part of an individual who KNEW her son was troubled and possibly dangerous. No gun law will ever prevent a massacre as long as people don't take personal responsibility for their own actions or lack of action.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the gun control nuts and their absolute belief that they can prevent any law abiding citizen from owning any gun that state and federal government has determined to be legal just because they don't like those particular weapon(s). More gun control laws will not prevent another massacre. More gun control laws will prevent a NEW weapon from being used to commit another massacre.

Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Did those laws prevent the massacre at Sandy Hook? The massacre occurred because of carelessness on the part of an individual who KNEW her son was troubled and possibly dangerous. No gun law will ever prevent a massacre as long as people don't take personal responsibility for their own actions or lack of action.

Not sure why you quoted me, right before posting this. I admitted that gun laws will not stop all of the gun violence. But reasonable limits on gun ownership can cut down on some of it. Having to carry 10 magazines, as opposed to just the one in the weapon, will probably save some lives. While it may mean that a guy only kills 20, instead of 30..... that's still 20 tragic deaths. But, if one of your loved ones was in the other group of 10, I'll bet you would be willing to compromise on reasonable limits to gun ownership?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,583
Reaction score
20,034
I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the gun control nuts and their absolute belief that they can prevent any law abiding citizen from owning any gun that state and federal government has determined to be legal just because they don't like those particular weapon(s). More gun control laws will not prevent another massacre. More gun control laws will prevent a NEW weapon from being used to commit another massacre.
Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Did those laws prevent the massacre at Sandy Hook? The massacre occurred because of carelessness on the part of an individual who KNEW her son was troubled and possibly dangerous. No gun law will ever prevent a massacre as long as people don't take personal responsibility for their own actions or lack of action.

Not sure why you quoted me, right before posting this. I admitted that gun laws will not stop all of the gun violence. But reasonable limits on gun ownership can cut down on some of it. Having to carry 10 magazines, as opposed to just the one in the weapon, will probably save some lives. While it may mean that a guy only kills 20, instead of 30..... that's still 20 tragic deaths. But, if one of your loved ones was in the other group of 10, I'll bet you would be willing to compromise on reasonable limits to gun ownership?

This is where I have a problem. As has been repeaated over and over in this thread, those that are for some type of gun control are not for taking away everyones guns, but it seems that everyone who is not for any additional gun control measures fail over and over to offer any solutions except to arm more people.
 

brandonnash

New member
Messages
214
Reaction score
9
This is where I have a problem. As has been repeaated over and over in this thread, those that are for some type of gun control are not for taking away everyones guns, but it seems that everyone who is not for any additional gun control measures fail over and over to offer any solutions except to arm more people.

Not arm more people, put people who more than likely are already armed by profession in schools. Policemen or private security officers. These would already have guns. Although I am not against arming school staff if budget restraints would not allow for a full time guard.

At this point it is the only option that makes sense. Connecticut already had the harsh control laws like everyone seems to think is the great fixer of gun crime. The criminals will break those laws just as the psycho did in Connecticut. Make it so when a gunman is deciding he wants to enters a school with the intent if killing people that he will more than likely hit opposition he would normally not have.
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
This is where I have a problem. As has been repeaated over and over in this thread, those that are for some type of gun control are not for taking away everyones guns, but it seems that everyone who is not for any additional gun control measures fail over and over to offer any solutions except to arm more people.

Please show me where I advocated arming more people anywhere in this discussion. There are enough semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines available, legally, right now that new gun control laws will not prevent another massacre. It will only prevent a massacre with a new semiautomatic weapon. And, as everyone knows, criminals aren't buying their weapons at gun stores. Simply believing that new gun control laws will prevent more massacres is naive at best. The only thing gun control laws do is hinder law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a S*** about gun control laws and never will.

I've stated that I'm in favor of longer waiting periods for gun purchases, stronger background checks and mandatory fundamental weapons classes. These changes may help in determining if someone is mentally unstable to buy a gun. I truly believe that these changes will be much more effective than any new gun control law ever will.
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
Not sure why you quoted me, right before posting this. I admitted that gun laws will not stop all of the gun violence. But reasonable limits on gun ownership can cut down on some of it. Having to carry 10 magazines, as opposed to just the one in the weapon, will probably save some lives. While it may mean that a guy only kills 20, instead of 30..... that's still 20 tragic deaths. But, if one of your loved ones was in the other group of 10, I'll bet you would be willing to compromise on reasonable limits to gun ownership?


I quoted you because of your sentence below:

"I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the NRA and gun rights nuts, and their absolute refusal to even consider ANYTHING other than the absolutely unimpeded right to own any kind of weapon that strikes their fancy."

I don't belong to the NRA, never have. I do own guns and have spent over 20 years in Law Enforcement, so I've been around guns in some capacity almost my whole life. Gun advocates are not "nuts" anymore than gun control advocates are.

"Reasonable limits on gun ownership", as you state, or new gun control laws only hinder the law abiding citizen. More, or new gun control laws will not deter someone that is determined to commit a massacre. Changes need to be made to the current regulations surrounding gun purchases.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I quoted you because of your sentence below:

"I don't understand the fanatical obsession of the NRA and gun rights nuts, and their absolute refusal to even consider ANYTHING other than the absolutely unimpeded right to own any kind of weapon that strikes their fancy."

I don't belong to the NRA, never have. I do own guns and have spent over 20 years in Law Enforcement, so I've been around guns in some capacity almost my whole life. Gun advocates are not "nuts" anymore than gun control advocates are.

"Reasonable limits on gun ownership", as you state, or new gun control laws only hinder the law abiding citizen. More, or new gun control laws will not deter someone that is determined to commit a massacre. Changes need to be made to the current regulations surrounding gun purchases.

1. I'm well aware that not all gun advocates are "gun nuts". That's why I chose the phrase "gun nut", and not gun advocate. I'm in favor of gun ownership. But you have to admit that the NRA is absolutely fanatical about not giving up a single thing, no matter how reasonable it is.

2. Maybe we should hinder the irresponsible law abiding citizens a little more. For instance, this guy's mom, who legally owned multiple firearms, but failed to safeguard those firearms from her mentally unstable son.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
1. I'm well aware that not all gun advocates are "gun nuts". That's why I chose the phrase "gun nut", and not gun advocate. I'm in favor of gun ownership. But you have to admit that the NRA is absolutely fanatical about not giving up a single thing, no matter how reasonable it is.

2. Maybe we should hinder the irresponsible law abiding citizens a little more. For instance, this guy's mom, who legally owned multiple firearms, but failed to safeguard those firearms from her mentally unstable son.

This is why I think there should be family background checks.

I understand that it is constitutionally sticky, but there are 20 six- and seven-year-old children who were robbed of their right to pursue life and liberty. And, there are at least 27 families in Conn. that will find it impossible difficult to pursue happiness anytime soon. These rights were taken away be someone with an automatic weapon. Why are their constitutional rights less important than anyone else's. The prominence of guns in this society is a Constitutional issue -- not so much for gun owners as it is for the victims of the crimes that are committed with guns.

The NRA is a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers -- nothing more nothing less. The fact that they have so much influence over the social fabric of this nation is appauling.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording of the 2nd amendment does not mention firearms, although it would be silly to think this is not what was meant by "Arms." However, it certainly does not mention automatic weapons or 30-round clips. The fanatical arguments against "regulating" these types of weapons and ammo is contrary to the spirit of the bill of rights. One could argue that they have the right to own a stealth bomber and all of the bombs that would fit in it -- it seems a modern malitia should have modern weapons systems, no? Nobody makes that argument, however. Why? Because it is insane and it is based on the same flawed logic the NRA uses to defend the rights of gun owners to have automatic weapons.

Besides, the National Guard, controlled by the governors of each state IS the "well regulated malitia."
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
We have 132,000 schools (public and private) in this country at this time. We either take 132,000 police off the streets or hire, train and maintain additional police. Aside from the cost of training these new recruits, this will require an annual outlay of close to 7 billion dollars for the police alone. The total cost will be closer to 10 billion per year, or 100 billion per decade. (Note, this is how the current budget costs are being framed in the fiscal cliff discussions.)
For all you tea party folks, this means we cut out 100 billion dollars from somewhere, say mental health or perhaps childhood immunization programs.

Are we next going to place armed guards in nursery schools? How about day-care? If not, why not? Do we not care about children under five? Are we going to send armed guards on school field trips? How about churches, movie theaters, concerts, political rallies, etc. How about on school buses?
How about military bases (Fort Hood, for example)
Do we just want to "keep safe" school aged children while in the classroom? What about me? If I slip up and leave my AK-47 at home and I need it to defend myself, what is going to happen to me?
Who payes for this police state? If we just stop supporting the 47% sucking on hind-tit there would be plenty of money. Dump social security, Medicare, Medicaid, NIH, FDA, most federal cabinet departments, like energy, education, HEW, etc. They just make regulations that prevent jobs anyway.
You get the idea.
After all we need the 100 round 'clips' for our assault guns. Those deer are hard to bring down.
As some of you might guess, I am for reasonable gun control.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
We have 132,000 schools (public and private) in this country at this time. We either take 132,000 police off the streets or hire, train and maintain additional police. Aside from the cost of training these new recruits, this will require an annual outlay of close to 7 billion dollars for the police alone. The total cost will be closer to 10 billion per year, or 100 billion per decade. (Note, this is how the current budget costs are being framed in the fiscal cliff discussions.)
For all you tea party folks, this means we cut out 100 billion dollars from somewhere, say mental health or perhaps childhood immunization programs.

Are we next going to place armed guards in nursery schools? How about day-care? If not, why not? Do we not care about children under five? Are we going to send armed guards on school field trips? How about churches, movie theaters, concerts, political rallies, etc. How about on school buses?
How about military bases (Fort Hood, for example)
Do we just want to "keep safe" school aged children while in the classroom? What about me? If I slip up and leave my AK-47 at home and I need it to defend myself, what is going to happen to me?
Who payes for this police state? If we just stop supporting the 47% sucking on hind-tit there would be plenty of money. Dump social security, Medicare, Medicaid, NIH, FDA, most federal cabinet departments, like energy, education, HEW, etc. They just make regulations that prevent jobs anyway.
You get the idea.
After all we need the 100 round 'clips' for our assault guns. Those deer are hard to bring down.
As some of you might guess, I am for reasonable gun control.

I hope you meant to use the sarcastic tone (italics) lol.

Off topic but I have to say the conservatives are in disarray. They can't even unite together to pass their own house bill on fiscal cliff. Never mind that the bill had no chance of getting past the Senate or the POTUS because it all but eliminate unemployment insurance, food stamps, and many other safety nets. The fact though that the republican house couldn't even pass John Boehner's plan B bill is sad. BTW I respect John Boehner and I feel for him having to deal with the Tea Party nut jobs.

That being said Boehner needs to quit worrying about maintaining his position as speaker of the house and do what is right. Instead of bringing his own plan he should bring the plan him and the president compromised on to the floor and call for an up or down vote. Only speaker can call for an up or down vote without a discharge petition. It would pass with majority of democrat votes and a solid minority of republican votes. Then we avoid the fiscal cliff and the economy won't be hurt any further.

The fact is neither Democrats nor Republicnas are going get 100% of what they want. I thought president made some fair compromises on his last negotiation. He was willing to extend the tax cuts from his orginal below 250K to below 400K and proposed some spending cuts to social programs that as a liberal I greatly dislike. BTW taxes are going to go up on everyone anway so its not like the republicans are saving their rich friend's taxes by not agreeing to a fiscal cliff, the only difference is everybody's taxes are going to go up.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I hope you meant to use the sarcastic tone (italics) lol.

Off topic but I have to say the conservatives are in disarray. They can't even unite together to pass their own house bill on fiscal cliff. Never mind that the bill had no chance of getting past the Senate or the POTUS because it all but eliminate unemployment insurance, food stamps, and many other safety nets. The fact though that the republican house couldn't even pass John Boehner's plan B bill is sad. BTW I respect John Boehner and I feel for him having to deal with the Tea Party nut jobs.

That being said Boehner needs to quit worrying about maintaining his position as speaker of the house and do what is right. Instead of bringing his own plan he should bring the plan him and the president compromised on to the floor and call for an up or down vote. Only speaker can call for an up or down vote without a discharge petition. It would pass with majority of democrat votes and a solid minority of republican votes. Then we avoid the fiscal cliff and the economy won't be hurt any further.

The fact is neither Democrats nor Republicnas are going get 100% of what they want. I thought president made some fair compromises on his last negotiation. He was willing to extend the tax cuts from his orginal below 250K to below 400K and proposed some spending cuts to social programs that as a liberal I greatly dislike. BTW taxes are going to go up on everyone anway so its not like the republicans are saving their rich friend's taxes by not agreeing to a fiscal cliff, the only difference is everybody's taxes are going to go up.

I wasn't going to bring it up on here, but the GOP these days seems stuck in strained logic on several issues. Many of them suggesst an across-the-board tax cut would bring in more revenue to the government. As the American people figured out before the election, this does not add up. Since the Conn. shooting, many of them are advocating putting more armed people in schools as a way to curb gun violence - some are even advocating arming teachers, which simply defies common sense. These proposals are not to be taken seriously. You are right, Chicago51, these are the proposals of a party in disarray. The GOP has lost its way and is teetering on becoming irrelevant.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I wasn't going to bring it up on here, but the GOP these days seems stuck in strained logic on several issues. Many of them suggesst an across-the-board tax cut would bring in more revenue to the government. As the American people figured out before the election, this does not add up. Since the Conn. shooting, many of them are advocating putting more armed people in schools as a way to curb gun violence - some are even advocating arming teachers, which simply defies common sense. These proposals are not to be taken seriously. You are right, Chicago51, these are the proposals of a party in disarray. The GOP has lost its way and is teetering on becoming irrelevant.


US Congressional Research committe who simply does research for the Congress (for everyone Democrats, Republicans, Independents). They are as non partison as it gets found that there is no evidence on tax breaks creating jobs, and after the report came out the GOP had them burry it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...search-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Actual Report has now surfaced:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

To summarize the report. There is no evidence between lower taxes and job growth. Although the study showed income gap between rich and poor is wider with lower taxes particularly lower taxes on the upper class. Basically the "Ronald Reagan trickle down economics" doesn't work.
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
US Congressional Research committe who simply does research for the Congress (for everyone Democrats, Republicans, Independents). They are as non partison as it gets found that there is no evidence on tax breaks creating jobs, and after the report came out the GOP had them burry it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...search-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Actual Report has now surfaced:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

To summarize the report. There is no evidence between lower taxes and job growth. Although the income between rich and poor is wider with lower taxes particularly lower taxes on the upper class. Basically the "Ronald Reagan trickle down economics" doesn't work.

and yet they continue to hang on to those ideas as their doctrine. it is almost as if they want to be irrelevant. we shouldn't hijack this thread with tax policy though.

This time of year, it is customary to offer tidings of peace on earth and good will to all men. Assault weapons and super-sized magazines are not compatible with those thoughts of generosity. I hope this country has seen enough evidence (like with trickle down economics) that our current system does not work.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
and yet they continue to hang on to those ideas as their doctrine. it is almost as if they want to be irrelevant. we shouldn't hijack this thread with tax policy though.
This time of year, it is customary to offer tidings of peace on earth and good will to all men. Assault weapons and super-sized magazines are not compatible with those thoughts of generosity. I hope this country has seen enough evidence (like with trickle down economics) that our current system does not work.

I'm done now. Just had to get that out their.

Merry Christmas to all; liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.

God Bless
 
Top