beowulf

What "new" gun laws would those be? Chicago's handgun ban was overturned in June 2010. Since then homicides have gone up. You are assuming the two are related. Did you read the thread title? Ass-umption there too. I wasn't commenting on the title, reading comprehension problem? It's good that you admit you are making an assumption. By the way what law is it that you are referring to regarding 'Chicago's handgun ban'?

What "new" gun laws would those be? Chicago's handgun ban was overturned in June 2010. Since then homicides have gone up. You are assuming the two are related. It's still very difficult to legally buy a handgun in Chicago. The question is how many of the homicides in Chicago were done with legally owned handguns?

It's not as simple of an issue as you are making it out to be. All you are doing is trying to find a way to justify stealing money from the rich to give to the poor. It's stealing no matter how you justify it. The rich still pay the majority of the income tax revenue. The very poor don't pay any income tax at all. Which would be someone living off of minimum wage like a McDonalds worker. You are just making an emotional argument for penalizing rich people for being rich. You are misunderstanding me I think. Im not advocating taking their money away. Im pointing out the fact is the mcdonalds worker (like a LOT of working class americans) will not have the means to leave their children with much. This perpetuates the cycle of working paycheck to paycheck into the next generation of working class. This is MUCH different than the generational wealth that makes up a pretty high portion of the richest people in America. They don't have to worry about WORKING, since their great granddad did that for them, and the money he made produces more money magically through the wonders of capitalism. I have no problem with the system as it (functions?) now, I just see some serious holes with, "They worked for it, they just wanted it more than the McDonalds guy". So you are jealous of people who inherit money. You have made that point very clear. Color me unimpressed.

Thank you for that astute observation, Captain Obvious. Possibly it's because the rich also have the majority of the income. A lot of people seem to think this isn't true.

Make it painful Make it visible Obama admin at work Does most of the country know who the Golden Knights are, let alone care that they won't see them at the next (fill-in-the-blank) doing a demo? Zach I doubt that the people who thought this up even consider how many people would notice. They just cut public facing things like this and the White House tours because they are public facing.

It's not as simple of an issue as you are making it out to be. All you are doing is trying to find a way to justify stealing money from the rich to give to the poor. It's stealing no matter how you justify it. The rich still pay the majority of the income tax revenue. The very poor don't pay any income tax at all. Which would be someone living off of minimum wage like a McDonalds worker. You are just making an emotional argument for penalizing rich people for being rich.

I was with you until the second half. "If you didn't work for it then you don't deserve it." There are PLENTY of extremely rich people who didn't and don't WORK for their money. They inherited it from someone who worked for it back in the day, and now the money works for them. Still agree its not nice to steal it from them. But its not really fair to compare dude working at McDonalds, to the heinz kids, or the hilton kids, or the mars kids, etc etc etc etc. How ever they got their money stealing it from them to give to someone who didn't work for it isn't right. It's dishonest and the same thing as stealing. I don't have any problem with people leaving their money or assets to their children.

I agree, but it's a separate point. It's a reflection of lack of experience and astuteness, leading to amateurish, ill-considered public relations gaffes. Too many newbies on White House and Congressional staffs (historically, of both parties), making serious decisions they're still under-qualified to make, which are not diligently vetted before they're put into play. I don't know that it could be attributed to newbies in the White House or Congressional staffs. I think it's an effort by politicians to scare the public into never cutting spending.

I think there is a little more to it then that. While I think the Golden Knights are really cool, I don't think they should be immune to budget cuts. But, I think the Government is cutting budgets in areas where the public will notice it the most in order to keep the public from allowing any more "spending cuts" to happen.

What I am trying to say is, QE isn't really even a short term solution. The problem is too much debt. All QE does is allow the Gov to avoid having to deal with the debt problem by creating more of the problem, debt. This just makes the problem that much worse and harder to deal with when we finally can't avoid it. So it's not really even a short term solution, it's just avoiding the problem.

QE isn't really keeping us going, it's just allowing the Government to continue borrowing at low interest rates. If the QE was stopped immediately the interest rates would start going up and the Government would be forced to cut spending and actually have a budget. The cost of the interest on the debt would quickly rise and cause lots of problems. Raising taxes only works up to a certain point and then it drives people out of the country and the actual money brought in from taxes will decrease. Cutting spending is the primary way to deal with this issue. Cutting taxes can also cause an increase in tax revenue. The way that happens is by encouraging the increase in new businesses. The more business you have the more tax revenue generated. It's the old business idea of making more money through high volume with a lower profit margin rather then having a higher margin with low volume.

Missed this in the first reply. We aren't actually paying off the debt. We are accumulating more debt to keep up with servicing the existing debt. There is a big difference.

It always makes me think of that old cartoon of the guy falling from the building saying "so far so good", or something like that. Sure the Roman Empire did last another 170 years, but not with out a lot of problems associated with the debasement of the currency. We are headed down that road. I can't remember which Fed person said this and I am paraphrasing, QE is like peeing the bed it feels good at first but afterwards it's an awful mess. You are assuming that other investors will buy enough to keep interest rates low. That is a very short term mindset. The long term affects of inflation is not good for anyone.

Do you really think the Fed will refuse to buy US Debt? Ever? The US can't afford for interest rates to rise at all. Other lenders aren't buying enough to keep interest rates this low.

It's a difference with out much of a distinction when it's obvious that the US can't pay back what it owes with out having to just out right print the money. QE is the same thing as printing money or debasing the currency. It has a long history. Diocletian did it in Roman times and look how well it worked out for them. If you will notice I didn't say it's the same thing as insolvency as you point out as long as they can still pay their bills they aren't insolvent. But when you print money to pay bills the money eventually loses purchasing power so it's not a good way to pay bills and has long term side effects that are really bad.

Government's that have their own currency can be insolvent and still pay their debts. It's called monetizing the debt. The reason the Gov has such low interest rates is because the Fed is monetizing the debt at the rate of $85 billion a month. The Fed is the biggest buyer of US debt and if they didn't do so, the US would be in big trouble and interest rates would be much higher. It's essentially insolvency, just not the same thing as what is insolvency for a company or you and I since we can't just print money.

That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Check the numbers and you will see. If nothing changes SocSec is projected to become insolvent sometime between 2036 and 2042. Right now it is NOT insolvent. Modest changes (such as raising the earnings ceiling and raising retirement age for full benefits) can even fix the projected insolvency. I have looked at the numbers and it's essentially insolvent as is the Government. They can't pay bills with out having to borrow money. SS has no money, its all treasury bills and it will require more than modest changes for it to be long term solvent as will the government at large. It only appears solvent due to accounting trickery. http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=46984

That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent?

You are assuming that all rich people have stolen their money. It's a big assumption.

Don't have time to right now. I will later on when I do have time. I suspect that I will agree with it, based on your quote.

My short answer is, it's dishonest and is the same thing as stealing. There is no honesty in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you didn't work for it then you don't deserve it.

The question is poorly posed. The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons. And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means. Apparently AG Holder thinks differently.

The use of drones to assassinate Americans was left open to the discretion of the President. And according to them it will only be used in special circumstances. To prevent 9/11 type attack is an example. That leaves a really big door open. Who is to say any use of a drone on US soil would actually prevent a 9/11 type attack? Apparently we are supposed to trust the Presidents judgment on this and due process can be avoided. I don't think that's a good idea.

Rand Paul is fighting this. There is a big difference between battle fields and Police actions and sending a drone kill a American on US soil with out due process.

That could be used to justify pretty much anything, like allowing the President dictatorial powers such as assassinating US citizens.