News of the Day

[pete]

That's been the odd dichotomy of the conservative movement for decades, though. They attack journalists, savage the entertainment industry, make one of their prime targets the ACLU, and try to impress the religion of the majority on the others, but then turn around and demand absolute purity in the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

You can have freedom of speech, unless you say or do something they find objectionable, like burn a flag, in which case your freedom of speech is not absolute.

You can have freedom of the press, unless you're the libral media, in which case they're going to threaten to pull the plug on your funding (PBS or NPR) or pull your license to broadcast.

And, you can have freedom of religion, as long as it's their religion. If not, tough. You're going to be expected to go into federal buildings with their religious icons displayed and to live your life adhering to their religious doctrines, which means Terri Schiavo has to be kept alive indefinitely whether the legal guardian likes it or not.

But, no qualifications on guns are allowed. None. If I want to have a drum that helps me shoot 100 rounds without reloading, I'm allowed to have that. Cop killing bullets? Sure. And even if I'm a convicted felon or have mental health issues, I should still be able to easily get my hands on a gun, because the Second Amendment is pure and absolute, even though the First Amendment, evidently, isn't.

[Donnie D]

The NRA has attempted to deflect three facts that are problematic to them with their proposal to arm guards in schools.

1 - The NRA basic premise that guns keep you safe. Mom had guns all over the place, including assult weapons, a glock and other handguns. Those guns did not keep her safe, despite all her guns, she was murdered. In fact, she was murdered partially because she had these guns.

2 - The NRA basic premise that good people having semi automatic guns does not lead to crime. In this case, the guns held by Mom were taken from her and used at the school. Had mom had not had such easy access to semi automatic guns, those guns could not have been used.

3 - The NRA basic premise that having everyone armed can prevent these situations. Not even going to the fact that the middle east veterans that they are talking about volunteering in schools may not be the most stable, themselves. And we will ignore the fact that a student could take the gun from the armed volunteer and cause another situation or that more students could get hurt in the crossfire. The fact is that a person with a handgun is at a huge disadvantage against someone with a semi automatic weapon. And if I'm planning to do something like this, the first person I'm going to take out is the armed guard anyway.

[pete]

First off, if you have 15 minutes to spare, here's a far better takedown of the NRA's proposed School Shield program than I can write.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2349965.html

Some key points:

- There was an armed deputy at Columbine High School, and it didn't help.

- There was an armed man carrying at the Gabby Giffords shooting in AZ, and it didn't help, because he couldn't get a clear shot through the crowd.

- It would cost billions to follow through on the NRA's program, and the cost of the program would likely not be supported politically by the NRA's board, which includes the likes of... Grover Norqvist, who opposes any tax increases to pay for public services like more police officers.

- Even if we believed that having an armed deputy in every school would work (again, it didn't at Columbine) what about at movie theaters? Are you going to have an armed guard at every movie theater to prevent the next Aurora? Or in every parking lot to prevent an incident like the Gabby Giffords' shootings? No.

So, great, even if we believe our children are secure from 8 am to 2 pm when they're in elementary school, they're completely unprotected from assault weapon toting maniacs the other 18 hours of the day. So, what have you really accomplished?

[NoSpin]

You guys see this?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/9/3857420/white-house-wont-rule-out-trillion-dollar-coin


Our government scares the hell out of me. All because people just want to keep spending.....

[pete]

It's not because people want to keep spending. Minting the coin doesn't give the Executive Branch the power of the purse. It's so that the government can meet the obligations that it has already made (money Congress has already spent) rather than having a paper default on our debts. The alternative is to ask the batshits in the House to raise the debt ceiling, and they're likely to demand cutting Social Security and/or Medicare benefits for the elderly in exchange. This avoids that hostage taking fiasco.

[Flycoon]

Originally Posted by pete

It's not because people want to keep spending. Minting the coin doesn't give the Executive Branch the power of the purse. It's so that the government can meet the obligations that it has already made (money Congress has already spent) rather than having a paper default on our debts. The alternative is to ask the batshits in the House to raise the debt ceiling, and they're likely to demand cutting Social Security and/or Medicare benefits for the elderly in exchange. This avoids that hostage taking fiasco.

True. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

In really simple terms (too simple, since the government is not the same as your personal finances) the equivalent fix for curing your personal spending problem would be to stop paying your bills. Where there is equivalency is the ramifications of such action; higher interest rates and less borrowing power. You may believe less borrowing for the government is a good thing, but it is extremely dangerous in an era of fixed revenue streams.

[Avery86]

Originally Posted by Flycoon

You may believe less borrowing for the government is a good thing, but it is extremely dangerous in an era of fixed revenue streams.

And with interest rates at an all time low, it's not like it's a huge issue to borrow at this point.

[pete]

Exactly, which is why the government shouldn't be shy about spending more on another, smaller stimulus package right now, either, that will aid state and local governments and set up the infrastructure bank Obama wants to set up.

If they feel the need to offset that with spending cuts, those should come from the spending cuts the Joint Chiefs have already recommended to the military budget, some of which are already in the spending sequester that is still alive from the fiscal curb deal.

[Donnie D]

I've probably pointed this out before but in case I haven't, the public debt is largely a function of the difference between public and private accounting.

In the private sector when FPL borrows money to build a power plant, it shows up in their books as an asset and liability - a wash. The only expense is the depreciation and interest on the debt - and those happen over time.

When the government buys anything, it is immediately expensed and there is no asset. So if they build a federal building the construction costs are an immediate expense even though they have an offsetting asset that is never booked.

If the private sector was using public accounting, damn near every business would be in debt up to their eyeballs.

[BurnTHalO]

Anyone catch any of the Clinton hearings today? I think it made me realize the Tea Party people are right, we are doomed. After hearing the questions and the Clinton responses with things such as "because it is the law?" I realize these ultra conservatives are going to destroy the country. The fact the people they elected don't know basic law, good God help us.