Results 1 to 10 of 15
12-27-2012, 10:32 AM #1
The Real Reason Why House Republicans Will Let The Country Go Off The Fiscal Cliff
I was playing golf with a very well educated, highly successful money manager (who is also a slightly right of center Republican) who had an interesting insight as to why John Boenier and the House Republicans are going to let the country go off the fiscal cliff despite the national and bipartisan demand to NOT go off the cliff.
Shockingly, it comes down to selfish politics.
The concept is that the lovely Grover Nordquist got nearly every one of the House Republicans to sign his "pledge" to not raise taxes. That is fact despite some saying that they would "compromise" in recent weeks/days. John Boeiner's plan seems to be to let the country go off the cliff and then quickly agree to a deal like the one the president is offering so that on the record - the house Republicans can say that they NEVER supported a tax increase. In fact, they got a tax decrease with their vote.
Ali Velshi on CNN made some interesting points about the potential effects of this concept of a bounce-back agreement this morning on TV. There is damage done to our nation's credit from the last time we played games with the debt ceiling. Our credit rating went down yet the effects weren't the end of the world. At the same time, how many times can a country that borrows as much as we do, play this game without getting burned? Its stupid and the people of America know it.
Anyone shocked that Congress has an 11% approval rating?
12-27-2012, 10:41 AM #2
As a side note on the gun control issue: you guys saw that the NRA's solution was to arm teachers and put a policeman in every school. No return to the assault rifle ban. No closing of the loophole of gun show sales without meaningful background checks. No limit on large capacity clips. Just more guns. More "good guys" to kill "bad guys". It was a very controversial press conference if you can call it that as the VP of the NRA didn't even stay to take questions.
Police are paid for by taxes. If you take the number of schools and multiply that times the median salary for a police officer in the country and you have $6,900,000,000 in new spending (source: CNN's GPS) in the country who's Republican party who says we have a "spending problem" and that no taxes should be increased. They were VERY clear on this topic in the election. Grover Nordquist was all over Sunday talk shows and anywhere he could get his message heard about it. He refused ANY compromise that included $1 in taxes for even as much as $10 in cuts in spending.
But get this, Grover Nordquist, is on the board of the NRA. See attached image from their site.
12-27-2012, 11:52 AM #3
Did you know about this incident from 1997? Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The culprit was stopped when the school's assistant principal got a gun from his car and apprehended the dirt bag. Funny how incidents like this NEVER show up on the news!
As for the total gun control debate, I agree with you that the gun show loophole needs to close and I'm all for background checks.
12-27-2012, 11:56 AM #4
On the issue of the fiscal cliff, the President has to be willing to compromise (which he hasn't done at all). How about raising taxes on anyone making $1 million a year or more? He insists on $250k and you won't get any Californian (Republican or Democrat) to agree with that (and probably not in any states that have higher costs of living). $250k a year in the Bay Area isn't like making $250k a year in Kansas City...not even close.
My personal compromise would be at $500k per year. Also, for every $1 in tax increases, there needs to be $2 in spending cuts (and yes, entitlements are on the table). Obama's problem is that he wants what he wants now and will address the spending cuts later...sorry, he's played that card already in the past and never had meaningful discussions about any reforms and he isn't going to bamboozle the House again.
12-27-2012, 12:59 PM #5
Did you know there were guards at Columbine? Didn't keep those shooters from killing a ton of people. Here's an article about it from Huff Po...
To be clear - I am not a proponent of taking people's guns away from them or repealing the 2nd Amendment. What I am saying is this:
• You don't need an assault rifle to hunt game or protect your home.
• You don't need armor piercing bullets to hunt deer. You need them to kill cops.
• You don't need a clip that holds 100 plus rounds unless you are going to war.
• The way 40% of people get guns are through a gun show with little to ZERO background check.
• When English speaking, first world countries like Australia, banned assault weapons, their gun violence rate went down a TON.
• The NRA is using heavy handed tactics to get politicians to get Republicans to support them OR ELSE (meaning that they will pump untold sums of money into their primary elections to get them tossed).
12-27-2012, 01:08 PM #6
Obama has proposed a plan for the new taxes to be above 400k in his most recent plan that John Boenier rejected for his caucus and then told them to go home for the holidays when their JOB is to represent the best interests of Americans. Note: Obama pissed off his base BIG TIME when he said the new taxes would be on 2%ers ($250,000 and up). He's compromised to $400,000 which is pretty fair. If the House Republicans would do their job - I bet Barry would go to $500,000 as you suggest. Its not really that big of a difference and a worthwhile compromise. But then again - please show me where Grover Nordquist is willing to compromise? I will show you - $7,000,000,000 per year in new spending on armed police in our schools. He's a total hypocrite.
Obama has offered $850,000,000,000 in spending cuts. That's certainly something.
Its the Republicans who won't compromise because they are a party that has been hi-jacked by the religious right and the gun lobby. Grover Nordquist thinks that the way to making us whole as a nation is to ONLY cut spending. That's moronic as Bill Clinton showed us how it could be done with higher taxes, a hot economy and paying down debt. W screwed this up and Obama has been spending his fool head off on Bush's wars, bailouts and more.
The solution is absolutely clear. Reduce spending and increase revenue. Its that east. Burn the candle from both ends.
Want a tax cut? Pay down the debt first. Big time.
Want a tax cut? End the last of Bush's wars?
Want a tax cut? Get the economy cranking again.
12-27-2012, 01:26 PM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
12-27-2012, 01:47 PM #8
The UK banned all gun ownership for all it's citizens in order to create their own little utopia. The results, gun crime has gone up (as well as homicides): England: gun ban totally ineffective | Questions and Observations
12-27-2012, 02:52 PM #9
After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998.
After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.
By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Read more here:
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Last edited by David Vaughn; 12-27-2012 at 03:02 PM.
12-27-2012, 05:59 PM #10
"English speaking" relates to countries LIKE OURS. "First world" relates to their economies. The comma in between them was to separate the ideas.
I hate to be so AVS to a new user but Is English your first language because you really missed the point of my post.