and that, imo, is what will prevent them from winning an election anytime soon, and it is killing me. religious nutjobs are killing the party and allowing the country to get unbalanced politically.


Hneftafl just sounds bitter. everyone ends up paying less taxes with less government. the rich have less of a burden on them so they are free to invest more money and expanding the economy. an economy expanded by the populace having more cash to purchase goods. it is a differing economic view, but to sum it up as simplistic as you just did is comically biased. and that is the fundamental fault of a 2 party system. hate and prejudice get in the way of legitimate discussion of issues.

heh. if the republicans were to change their views on those two subjects alone, i'd most likely start voting republican again.

mrford is assuming that Republicans spend less than Democrats. This is a comically biased and absurd opinion. Republicans spend as much if not more than Democrats, they just don't see the need to pay for those expenditures with accompanying taxes. Calling me bitter, simplistic, hateful and prejudiced doesn't make me wrong.

More gov? Lol the way u put it down would require no government .
I think conservatives today do not give two fluffs about where people shove their show in the bedroom. I dont think they really care about abortion or birth control, they just dont want to pay for that fluff with their tax dollars or cover the cost in our socialist healthcare system.. People dont want to be responsible for others perceived immoral values that kill.

that isnt what i said at all, however i applaud your total mischaracterization of my post. it literally proves what i just said.

Whatever. Bottom line: the assertion that lower tax rates spur economic growth is wholly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It is your opinion and that's all. It's at least as valid to argue that increased tax rates spur growth.

Dang, this defines clueless...

there is no way you are being serious right now.

maybe you are referring to trickle down economics where only the rich get tax breaks and not everyone, but that is not what i am talking about at all. and even then your statment is false because it is so finite. once again your extreme bipartisanship blinds you to simple truths and causes you to jump to conclusions and look like an idiot.

You two can't seriously believe it is self-evident that tax cuts spur growth. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kool-Aid...

Perhaps you should try your hands on running a business, then maybe you'll get it and realize you are incorrect.

Running a business won't make either of us an expert on taxes or economics. You think tax cuts spur growth because that is what you've been told by those you choose to listen to. It isn't supported conclusively by anything, it's just an assertion made by politicians and pundits.

Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who repeats things loudly to those you think don't understand them. You must hate Mexicans.

Wtf
Lol

naw, im mainly just posting now so you keep responding. you prove my point better than i ever could.

mr? is that mister or mayor?

Congratulations, you're the dumbest person to post on EE forums, YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK JAYR!!!!

it is neither. guess again!

No, that would be the person who's fond of quoting himself. Just be glad it isn't you. You're second.

Tax cuts across the board, do spur economic growth. They dont spur government growth, so I can see why you dismiss it so quickly, but alas...

to respond to this...



wrong! Conservatives want the government completely out of both of them. I have spoken many times on this forum about both of them.
Marriage should not be a state issue or a federal issue. If I choose to be single, I should not be taxed at a different rate than someone who is married. If I choose to marry whomever I want, I should not be limited by the state on my options. Just as the government shouldn't tell me who I cannot marry, it shouldn't give me different benefits based on my choice to not marry at all. We are searching for equality right? A truly equal marriage system is the govt completely out of it and let people do what they want with it.

Abortion? Whatever, have all the abortions you want to have. That is your personal decision and I am all about personal responsibility. Just don't ask me to pay for it or subsidize it through taxation. That is against my beliefs. Just like Serpentor wouldn't want to have his tax dollars subsidize my next purchase of a fully auto rifle. Oh wait, he wants those banned? The irony.

correct.

Cutting taxes might not be so bad...but I wonder what those specific rates are and what tax structure they want to propose.

Does one favor a flat tax, or perhaps we keep the current progressive model with lower rates? Do we nix exemptions?

I think most of us would agree that cutting taxes on the middle class would be nice. However, a small marginal tax cut might not move the needle. You have to spur demand because that is what really spurs the economy. The only way I see that happening with a tax cut is a substantial slashing of the rates...moreso than what we already see through exemptions.

While cutting taxes, we have to ask ourselves about the services our government provides. Conservatives love defense spending so that's not going away. Old folks (the most reliable voting bloc) love their Medicare. I do believe Obamacare will be more popular in the future but no matter how you feel about it...it's not going away.



If Republicans would change their tune on social issues, I might take a closer look at some of them. It's hard to vote for a party that advocates a social policy from the 1960s.

Cutting taxes is popular with monetarist economists.

I was taught economics (a very long time ago) by people then mainly influenced by Keynes and Marshal.

What is a puzzle to me is that Keynesian economics was tried out quite a bit (say in the Marshal plan) and seemed to work. Sizeable government deficits and spending stimulated economies. As far as I know Keynesian ideas have never been refuted and monetarist ideas are substantially untested.

And yet monetarism seems to have displaced Keynesian ideas everywhere w/o any clear explanation as to why.

As far as I can see it is just a massive experiment.

I am doubtful that the experiment is going to work out well - but I guess we all have to hope that it will.

Thank you.

i think it's important to distinguish between Republicans and Tea Baggers. From what I can tell, mrford is a non crazy republican. These people are more rational than Tea Party Republicans. You guys must really hate the Teabaggers.

Tea Baggers are quite hypocritical. For some reason, the desires of the extremely wealthy dovetail with the ideals of the very poor (and uneducated) when it comes to taxes and tax spending but for different reasons. Teabag politicians don't want to spend money on planned parenthood, environment, social security, and other stuff that actually helps poor people have a chance to pull up their bootstraps. The rich like this because those programs don't make any money for them. It's good to keep the poor down in the dumpsters because then they have cheap labour. Just look at the average age of McDonalds workers in the 1990's compared to 2014 (the avg age has gone up 7.5 years). But the crazy teabag voters have these religious ideals about abortions, and the hoax that is climate change, and Obama is a communist socialist, etc. which the politicians have fed to them TO GET VOTES. As mrford said earlier, the issues of gay rights and abortion are keeping the republicans from gaining a presidency BECAUSE they might lose votes in their Christian base. If they want to win, they have to move left and try to get some immigrants to vote for them instead of virtually disenfranchising anyone who can't get a photo ID.

the problem with statistics is people dont seem to understand hoe many variables go into one final number, and the many many different things that can effect it.

like your McDonalds stat, or the tax break stats. they really prove nothing as there are so many different causalities for those numbers. however, people still try to use them as fact and points for their cause. we simply do not have enough long term data on these ideas and experiments.

the bush tax breaks not helping the economy can be chalked up to the oncoming recession caused by poor financial practices that had been in place for a long time. on the flip side the regan tax breaks helping the economy can be chalked up to the increased military spending that helped lead to the end of the cold war. simplistic views on statistics is the only sure fire way to get everything wrong. the type of tax cut, the environment the tax cut was made in, the government spending related to toe tax cuts, they are all factors that are often ignored either out of ignorance, or desire to prove a point at all costs.


regardless, if you wanna take my guns, you better bring your a game, or have some fancy new reason i have never heard of before. reasonable regulation through better databases for felons and the clinically unstable would be welcomed. blanket regulations by a nanny government because of the irresponsibility of a few is what i deem unacceptable, regardless of if it is about guns, or beer, or whatever. it is as simple as that.

Your libertarian is showing! =)

"reasonable regulation through better databases for felons and the clinically unstable would be welcomed. blanket regulations by a nanny government because of the irresponsibility of a few is what i deem unacceptable, regardless of if it is about guns, or beer, or whatever. it is as simple as that."

I couldn't agree more. There's no reason why your average person could not have a gun... it's those people who should have exception (mental illness, etc.) who should not are still capable. There isn't a fine enough net to catch those outliers. That said, I'm fully aware that the death rate of people via guns is actually remarkably low, and emboldened inside of that stat, is that a majority of gun deaths in the united states is gun suicide. Perhaps the question needs to be framed differently.

Why are there school shootings? Why are there military base shootings? How can we fix those problems?

Perhaps guns are the easiest target for such a debate because they are the tool that is used in all of those cases. I've never seen a school knifing that took the lives of 15 kids and 3 teachers or whatever the case may be. Even in Canada with the Parliament shootings that took place this fall...

Why are these people behaving in such a way? I don't have the answers. Maybe nobody does because it's a major paradigm to shift the behaviour of a large amount of people. Maybe the problem will sort itself out naturally... and will likely have nothing to do with government and more to do with culture.

All of the relevant arguments have been presented countless times. Anyone who doesn't understand it by now simply cannot, or more likely, WILL not.

Maybe we just need to wait for a 2 year old to shoot mom in a walmart or something...

It's possible to both understand and disagree with an idea. Believe it or not.

"A woman in the US state of Idaho has been killed after her two-year-old son accidentally shot her with a gun he found when reaching into her handbag."


Just so horribly sad.

that is the mothers fault for not having the weapon safely and properly stored regardless of the situation. im not saying she deserved to die, but the penalty of death for improper gun usage is always there, so one should be extra careful when accepting that responsibility.

it is the same as drinking, making sure you make good decisions because it could cost you your life or the lives of others. if you are not capable of making good decisions, you shouldnt partake. punishing everyone because of the poor judgment of a few is a nanny government and is a dangerous precedent to set.

In canada, for you to legally carry a handgun, there needs to be a trigger lock and keep it locked up in a locked case in the trunk...

Also, before you can buy a gun, you need to go through a hunter/firearm safety course and THEN apply for an FAC. Is it anything like that in the States? I'm not asking to be snide, I really want to know.

Nope.

In California you go through a federal background check, pass a firearm safety test then wait for 14 days before recieving your weapon. You transport the weapon with trigger lock or equivalent and ammo in separate locked container.
To carry on person concealed you must apply at the sheriffs dept and pass a background check. Once sheriff interviews you and accepts you can start a class then take a test. Pass another federal background check take your fingerprints. Pay your license fee and qualify with the particular firearm(s) you intend to carry at a gunrange with a qualified rangemaster.
Hunting requires permits and tags. With that comes hunter saftey courses.

California blows.......... At everything

It sounds like California is very similar to Canada with their gun laws.

There are different levels of gun ownership in the states but we will talk about strictly pistols here.

if you just want to purchase a pistol you need a pistol purchase permit. to get one you can either apply online or in person with your local sheriff office, and it usually takes a couple days for them to run a background check. You can buy multiple pistol purchase permits at a time and they are good for like 5 years or something. I picked mine up in person a couple days later downtown. This necessity is negated once you get your conceal carry license. that then acts as your pistol purchase permit for as long as it is valid.

so you purchased your pistol. now you are only allowed to open carry it. it is not allowed to be concealed in any manner unless you are transporting it in your trunk or some other locked compartment. it is legal to have it on your dash, or seat, or open carry on your belt if you are in a state that allows open carry, not all do. some states only allow concealed carry, and if you print or flash, even by accident, you can get a ticket. (printing is the outline of the gun showing through your chothing so someone can tell you are armed. showing is your shirt lifting to revelal your weapon. I have a friend that actually got a ticket while reaching for something on a top shelf. a police officer saw his weapon and he was in a state that didnt allow open carry. seems silly, but it is the law.

so lets say you want to upgrade to a concealed carry permit. you need to take a class to obtain that permit, and undergo a more extensive background check. the class is 8 hours anc covers things like the laws governing the use of deadly force, concealed carry statute, & other relevant issues, the fundamentals of gun operation, personal protection with the use of a handgun, gun safety, ammunition, and shooting techniques, among other things. A class i is only as good as the teacher though, so choose well. this class can cost anywhere from $60 to $160.

once you have your concealed carry, you are legally allowed to carry anywhere that they dont charge admission, serve alcohol, or have a posted sign stating otherwise.


Granted, not everyone follows the rules, but there are some hoops to jump through to be a responsible gun owner. I addition, these were the requirements for my North Caroline concealed carry permit, which is valid in 36 other states providing that i abide by local specific gun ordinances. Not every state has the same laws or requirements.

hopefully this cleared up some of the common misconceptions about gun ownership.

if only the mother had a firearm of her own so she could've defended herself against an armed 2 year old!

the answer to all these tragedies is, clearly, more guns

Trife is right!

If she was dumb enough to leave a gun where a 2 year old can gain access to it I would chalk this incident up to natural selection

I wonder if Canada has a gun show loophole.

Jesus you are a bitter, misinformed little fluff. It is entertaining but at what expense?

The guns shows that you are referencing that do not preform background checks, require other forms of permits. Some require membership that requires a background check. Others require you to present your pistol purchase permit or Conceal Carry liscense, those also require background checks. Also, most gun shows the vendors are FFL by law, and they have training on the sale of guns and judgment. Just because a background check isn't required at the point of purchase, doesn't mean one wasn't preformed. I didn't have one done on me when I bought my weapon from a store, because I had my purchase permit. How is that any different?

Wernt you making some comments about being a media sheep on this very thread? Comical.

They just want to make it harder for law abiding people to purchase guns no amount of regulation will stop violence

You really don't like to be disagreed with, do you? LOL

Not with false and misleading information, no I dont. There is enough stupidity in this world without you perpetuating it.

I live in a real state. If I want a pistol, I walk into the gun store, buy my pistol and ammunition. In and out in under 5 minutes. The only check we have here is the store calls the state police for a background check to ensure you are not a felon.

If Canada wants to do something stupid fine.... but here in the U.S. it is a RIGHT to own a gun unless you are a felon or deemed insane. Those who would be like to relinquish that right should be rounded up and shot for being a bunch of dipfluff fluffs.

For the Canadian asshat who seems to want to lecture US citizens on the ownership of firearms, go fluff yourself.

Those who don't wish to own a gun should be lined up and shot by those who do? You and people like you are the dipfluff pussies.

choosing not to use a right is not the same as choosing to give up that right, regardless of his exaggeration.

classic Hneftafl

Those who wish to infringe upon other rights to own a gun.... for that matter anyone who wishes to but their stupid opinions and logic into other people's lives should be round up and shot.. yes. People have fought and died for people's rights (here in the US) and I don't think they did it so a bunch of fluffs could sit around and dictate how people should live.