President Obama appeared on Meet The Press Sunday morning. On this last Sunday of 2012, host David Gregory asked the President about his goals for his second term. Gun control was not mentioned. Gregory pointed out the missing topic from the President's list of priorities. What was number one? Immigration. Why? According to pundits and the President, immigration is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Immigration is not going to solve America's debt problems or reduce the number of mass killings by AR-15.
Gregory asked the President what his "single priority" of his second term would be. He listed immigration, the economy, energy, and fourthly, the tax rates of the middle class. Gregory responded, "Those are four huge things and you didn't mention after Newtown, although I know you're thinking about it, new gun regulations." Only after David Gregory specifically asked about gun control did the President vow to put his "full weight" behind legislation to ban assault weapons and high capacity clips. That statement is one of the singlemost meaningless statements he has ever made. He can't even throw his "weight" around to get a budget passed! He talked in the interview as if going over the cliff is an absolute! Even going so far as to say that on January 4th he will propose new legislation to cut taxes on the middle class. Sounds as if the legislation is already written just waiting to be submitted after the deadline expires.
In fairness to the President, it is mostly the fault of the Republicans who refuse to compromise on taxes for their wealthy constituents. You can show a Republican a sensible financial plan, but you cannot make him comprehend it or sign it. There are limits to what Obama can do when it comes to dealing with Republicans in Washington.
And it is typically those identifying with the Republican party that are obsessed with their weapons. As Tom Brokaw said during the round table discussion, if you are worried about the government knocking on your door and taking away your gun, you don't realize you would have much bigger problems in that scenario. If that happens, as Brokaw says, "We're in anarchy."
So, why not make it illegal to own an assault weapon again? It was illegal for 10 years between 1994 and 2004. No government officials came knocking on doors confiscating weapons during that time. No one proposed legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment during that time. Responsible gun ownership is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Owning weapons to commit mass murder is not. Virtually every person of reasonable intelligence agrees that an AR-15 is not used to hunt deer or quail or rabbit. They agree that a weapon such as an AR-15 is designed to kill people.
And they will continue to kill people for at least the next 4 years because passing immigration reform will be easier than keeping murderous weapons out of the hands of citizens. Perhaps Obama should have listened to Mary Todd Lincoln from the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter when she tells Abe, "I wouldn't back away from what's right because it's hard."
Image Source: The Peoples Cube
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 51
Kind of a cheap shot there ....
There will be no good change this next four years, only more socialism, and dictatorship, and more disregard for Americans, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the Declartion of Independence.
I think for myself.....Sorry to disappoint you...Don't need someone to tell me how to do that......
Odd that.
You certainly know that `his or her ilk' is lost in a preprogrammed language/ideology of Right-Wing Propaganda.
Narrow-minded individuals, such as the commenter above, are caught in an incapacity to think with originality and creativity and vision.
They are "Yes" men and "Yes" women--who are part of a major syndrome of a toxic verbal malignancy.
I opposed the bailouts under the Bush administration, and I continued to oppose them under the current administration. I don't agree with tax and spend, spend and tax.
I am a Christian, I am a conservative, and as much as people like to think me a 'yes' person, the only one I have to answer to is God. Thank you very much. I base my political beliefs based on what I believe to be morally right. You don't have to agree with me, but you too one day will answer to God. For it is written
Romans 14:11-12 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Disclaimer: You may not agree with me on religion, that's fine, but since you seem to think I'm a yes person, I felt obligated to tell you that the only person I am accountable to is God, not the GOP, not anyone else on this earth, and I'm sorry if I don't fit your mold of how you think I'm supposed to think, I don't work that way.
All governments tax and spend. The trite use of this phrase to characterize progressive politicians as wasteful is dishonest and disingenuous. The record of conservative politicians of running up huge deficits (see Reagan, Bush) puts the lie to it.
The question is whom they require to pay what taxes and what they choose to spend on.
If one were to base their preferences in taxing and spending on Biblical teaching one would be inclined to want the rich to pay the most taxes, thus alleviating them of the problem of trying to fit that camel through the eye of the needle, and programs to alleviate poverty to be the priority for spending, in order to do unto the least of these our brethren.
When people oppose those things and claim to have Bible driven perspectives on politics I wonder what they think the Bible is all about.
Apparently even empty suits accomplish more than any Republican is capable of, unless you want to discuss the damage Republicans are capable of creating.
unless you want to discuss the damage Republicans are capable of creating.
IMO, your statement should read,
Unless you want to discuss the damage that the Teapublicans have done in Congress with their totally "NO" spend attitude for the past two years. Refusing to let any Democrat sponsored Bill come to a vote and trying to repeal ACAPP 33 times, not to leave out their abuse of the Constitution with their "Do Nothing" agenda as a response to Barack H. Obama winning the presidency.
The entire time Clinton was touting the assault weapon ban, he allowed the Chinese government to unload MILLIONS of SKS rifles which, because they are not clip fed and don't look like assault rifles, didn't qualify for the ban...a typical cynical Clinton MOVE that went right past you Koolade drinkers...
Jo Jo bought a CASE (12) of them at a gun show for less than a thousand bucks...
Save one for me.
I was as disgusted as anyone about Newtown and Webster, the Bushmaster disasters, but I don't really feel a need to blame Obama for our current gun mess. He did not create it, and with a Republican majority in the House, he really does not have the votes to do anything about it. Blame Dems? How about the Republicans who are licking NRA shoes? Is it okay for them to behave badly because it's just a given, like the sun coming up every morning?
Second Presidential terms are NOT known for changing the world. It tends to end with a whimper, rather than a bang. Fiscal mess first. If he cannot resolve that one, basically he has no second term anyway.
You missed the point completely...The so called assault weapon ban was and is mere cosmetics...
And...we don't have a "gun mess" except for those wielded by thugs, like on the Southside of Chicago...go get them off the streets first...They are already illegal...
No...you would rather pass a meaningless gun ban that only interferes with the rights of law abiding people than actually do something about the problem. Enforce 2300 gun laws we already have...
And...Obama is a putz, thank God...he barely got ObamaCare passed when he had complete control of the Senate and House...
Oh, BTW, Harry Reid and many other Democrats are on the NRA payroll...at least for now...
The GOP is being blamed for obstructing the implementation of the policies Americans actually voted for.
But you seem to have a real problem with discerning facts from your opinions. Facts are not defined by what ever happens to pop into your head, come out of your mouth or through the keyboard by your fingers. Go back and read the definitions I have already provided you with today on another conversation string. Read them over and over until you begin to understand them. Then try again.
What the CBO did say was that raising the tax rates would hurt growth by 0.25 percentage points (alot, when the economy may only raise by one or two points) and would kill 200k jobs.
Why would anyone push for something that would hurt growth and kill hundreds of thousands of jobs? Let me give you a hint. It is not to decrease the deficit. It is for "fairness". So taking money from those who would otherwise use the $$ to expand their businesses, hire people, etc., will now give the money to the sickeningly wasteful government.
Do you "interpret" that as a good thing?
So, in fact, they are projecting anywhere a 0.2% decline in growth to a 1.4% increase in growth under Obama's 2013 budget.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
You forgot this part:
For the 2013–2017 period, before accounting for the macroeconomic effects, CBO estimates that the President’s proposals would add a total of $1.5 trillion to deficits, resulting in a cumulative deficit of $3.2 trillion over that period (see Table 1). The economic feedback from the President’s proposals would yield projected deficits totaling between $3.0 trillion and $3.2 trillion over that period.
For the 2018–2022 period, before accounting for the macroeconomic effects, CBO estimates that the President’s proposals would add a total of $2.0 trillion to deficits, resulting in a cumulative deficit of $3.2 trillion over that period. The economic feedback from the President’s proposals would yield projected deficits totaling between $3.3 trillion and $3.6 trillion over that period."
Here is the report for the Fiscal Cliff - it came out in November.
I don't understand what is "fair" about asking people who make over 200k, your local corner store owner, to give more money to a government who insists on spending America into oblivion. The blind trust in the government is overwhelming to me, particularly when the debt, deficit, and fiscal cliff is entirely their creation. The money that funds the wasteful government comes from the producers. Why would it be fair to take even more from them?
And it will not hurt the economic growth as can be shown by comparing the tax rates and growth rates under the conservative's beloved, Ronald Reagan. Under Reagan, the top marginal individual income tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%. "The Reagan recovery had one of the fastest rates of growth we ever saw," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "If anything it was too strong. It was spectacular."
The poor CAN'T create jobs - they have no money. So if the wealthy are not creating jobs, who the hell is?
I've got some News for you, Lora:
There are 88 Million People either on Welfare or employed by the United States Government. There are only 108 Million who are paying into the System.
It is foolhardy, nay, impossible, for the 108 to support themselves AND the 88.
Wake up and do the Math.
By doing the math what we find is:. A) the wealthiest period of American history was 1950-1970, a time when the wealthy were being taxed at a rate of between 90% and 70% of their income. And they were still wealthy, not taxed into penury at all!; B) the deficit was created by Republican tax cuts and war debts which both parties own; C) creating a deficit and debt problem by gifting the wealthy and solving it by punishing the poor is a modern-day reverse-Robin Hood, it is unChristian, immoral and bad economics.
Wealthy "job creators" are not the drivers of the economy. Working people with decent wages who provide demand for consumer goods ks the main driver of the economy. No matter how much money your boss gets to sock away in his Cayman Islands account you will still have trouble paying your credit card bill.
Wow, thank you for that, Mark-John.
Rory, I give you actual numbers. Wealthy "job creators" are not the drivers of the economy. Working people with decent wages who provide demand for consumer goods ks the main driver of the economy The working people would not have jobs if they were not employed by someone, would they? Either way, it is certainly not the government who creates jobs. I get that you are a socialist, but when the money of those evil wealth producers dries up, the natural inclination for people is to turn to a free market. The government needs to get out of the way - they would end up making more in taxes if they did, which is the irony.
"Fuzzy Math" = Fact Irrefutable.
The government employs people (part of the 88 million number MJK trumpets without sourcing) who pay taxes and are consumers of manufactured goods, thus creating more demand which creates more jobs.
The government employs police officers, soldiers, judges, prison guards, teachers, health inspectors, park wardens, border guards, astronauts, customs agents, food safety inspectors, scientists and many, many others who perform necessary functions in society, are paid for their efforts, pay taxes on their earnings and participate as consumers in society.
Those are people with jobs created by the government.
There are also all kinds of jobs people perform for charitable and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including political parties, that get their income from broad based citizens support, not all from wealthy individuals. Those people also perform valuable services in many cases, are paid for their efforts, pay taxes on their earnings and participate in society as consumers.
The biggest drivers of employment are small businesses, and not all small business owners are part of the 1%. Many small business owners are solidly middle class earners. They employ a few folks, paying them for their efforts, and those folks pay taxes on their earnings and participate in the consumer society as well.
What's left are the people who actually work for the wealthy and the large corporations. They too have jobs, pay taxes and buy stuff. But they are hardly unique in doing so.
So the wealthy are not the only creators of jobs. And the wealthy need no help, no sweetheart tax cuts, to enable them to create jobs. They do it or don't do it based on their own preferences and choices.
All the rest of that hero-worship and genuflecting towards them by you rightwingnutjobs is simply ideological myth making.
And you never did respond to the November CBO report that said taxing people who make over 200k would hurt growth and cost America 200k jobs...?
I didn't say that Government doesn't hand out jobs, *****. I said that Government produces nothing. Anything that Government "produces" is "produced" not by Government in the least...but by the American Taxpayer.
I know and agree with your passion for the enactment of better gun control laws and proper ownership restrictions. But, unfortunately for you, me and others who believe in and promote safer gun ownership, the harsh reality is, that the economy, debt relief, unemployment and tax reform are all higher priorities than the enactment of better gun regulations.
The mention of immigration by the president, I suspect was only done so as a means by which to create a distraction from gun reform legislation. Since we all know, that neither party wants to actually be seen as the party which closed the borders to Latin American immigration. The Latino vote has become far to important to take the chance of alienating that voting block.
Arguably, there is little doubt that better gun control is needed within our society. A fact which is more than evident by the violence involving the use of firearms by Americans. However, the answers to such violence and gun control in general, will require new legislation coming out of Congress. Legislation which will be met with staunch gun advocate resistance as well as gun lobbist pressure on the members of Congress. Thereby, such legialation will be a hard sell among the majority of Congressional members and will create problems for any supporters among them.
Whereas, other previously noted problems facing our country can be solved by the Congress with logical reasoning and agreed upon compromise between the two ruling political parties. As is widely known, politicians always choose the easy problems to tackle first, (naming Post Offices etc.) which puts gun control way, way, down on the priority list.
But for the sake of argument on the subject of gun control and it's associated violence, I offer the 2004 statistics. The numbers were comprised by the The National Center for Health Statistics and Mortality Report, a sub department of the Center for Disease Control. The statistics were complied in 2007 for the year 2004. The year 2012 having just concluded, that makes the statistics 8 years out of current date, but they were the latest numbers available.
There were a total of 29,569 deaths attributed to fireams in the USA. The breakdown is shown below.
1) 16,750 suicides
2) 11,645 homicides
3) 649 unintentional killings (accidental shootings)
4) 311 legal killings (committed in defensive actions)
5) 245 undetermined deaths (questionable circumstances)
Pathetic, to say the least.
If your presumption were true, and I am not debating whether it is or not, you are as guilty as she is as YOU ARE ENCOURAGING her behavior by continuing to giving her YOUR attention. Did you not learn ANYTHING in school about how to handle such people? Encouraging behavior that YOU DEEM TO BE OFFENSIVE makes you just as guilty.
So, either quit giving her your attention, or quit being hypocritical about behavior that YOU ENCOURAGE.
Your assessment may or may not be correct. However if it is, then you are just as guilty as I, since you are encouraging my behavior by coming to N.Z's defense. Further, if it is your intention to join her small group of yapping puppies, you are certainly on the right path by attacking her detractors.
BTW: I was not addressing you in my pointed comment. Therefore, I must ask, did you not learn in school that it is not nice to break into other people's conversation, naughty, naughty. When or if I want your impute or opinion, I will ask for it.
Your assessment may or may not be correct, I want argue the point since it is not something I care about one way or the other. However, if it were on point, would you not also be guilty, since by coming to N.Z.'s defense, as you did and she will love, you are establishing my case for me and thereby, encouraging me to continue making such charges. Which I will.
BTW: My comment was in no way directed towards you, it was my personal observation being conveyed to another person and you had to know that. Therefore, I am compelled to ask, did you not learn in school that it is neither appropriate nor nice to break into other people's conversations, without being invited. ??? No hard feelings, but next time, I would ask that you keep your opinions to yourself, I have enough of my own.
Your assessment of my comment, may or may not be correct. But, if it is, then, would you not also be guilty of the very same thing by coming to N.Z's defense, an act which not only makes my case, but furthers her personal agenda.
BTW: If you are wishing to join the "Doll's" pack of yapping attack puppies, you just sniffed out her scent and you are thereby, on the right trail.
More to the point, my comment was in no way dircted towards you and I'm sure that you were well aware of that fact. Therefore, I am complelled to ask, did you not learn in school that it is inappropriate to break into others people's conversation without being invited. I am not offended, but I would ask that in the future please keep your opinions to yourself. If ever feel the need for your impute, I will respectfully ask for it. It's not that I have any animosity towards you, it's just because, I have more than enough opinions of my own. I don't need other people's opinions to get me into trouble, I do well enough with mine.