Liberalization of Gun Laws in Virginia

[gunderwood]

Let's see.

And, on economic and safety and commerce issues, the government has a large role to play:
- Creating a fair and competitive marketplace; That exists by two or more people trading freely without government interference. The only reason the government gets involved is because it doesn't like the terms to or more people would freely agree to otherwise.

- Preventing fraud and financial abuse; Amazing job they've been doing there...you know, like the housing market? My bad, government fraud doesn't count.

- Keeping the financial systems stable; I can't believe you actually posted that. Bang up job they've been doing. A fundamental question might be, why do you need government force to keep things aligned to reality? I would've thought that the only purpose of force would be to distort markets into unsustainable positions...kind of by definition you don't need government to decree gravity.

- Regulating the safety and availability of products; Ah, you mean regulation which removes the responsibility and the risk from large companies in exchange for political donations? Or do you mean the general nanny state which has nothing better to do than tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can not own, etc?

- Collecting duties; Why is collecting payments at threat of a gun a good thing?

- Ensuring the flow of international commerce; Ah, you mean "free trade" which is anything but you know, free?

- Ensuring the availability and affordability of health insurance and car insurance and home insurance and business insurance; You live in a fantasy land. Government regulation can not change the cost of anything in real dollars. Sure, they can regulate prices but that simply causes a shortage (demonstrated over and over again and supported by economic theory). Thus, they only thing they can do is hide the true cost by taxing other people for your services. Awesome ethics you have going here.

- Disaster assistance; You mean so that the rest of the country can subsidize people who knowing live in places deemed high risk? Certainly disasters happen and we should help out, but we should not be subsidizing insurance and engineering projects so that people can choose to live in bad places.

- Financial assistance to failed institutions that are essential to our economy; If it's failed it needs to go...it's the fundamental feedback loop of Capitalism. Offer goods and services that others want/need and you makes lots of money...don't and you go broke. Subsidizing failure extremely stupid as you'll just get more of it.

- Preventing monopolies and promoting anti-trust; I think you mean granting monopolies in exchange for political donations...e.g. telcos

- Securing the banking systems; You mean by absorbing all their risk so they are free to make any investment, good or bad, and make money on it? I really need to start a bank.

- Assisting our veterans; We kind of owe that to them as part of their contract of employment.

- Funding our educational systems; Except they don't. At the end of the day those funds come out of my pocket and are used for substandard services.

- Promoting public health policies; Yes, because I don't know that I shouldn't stick screwdrivers in my eye...

- Prevention of disease and epidemics; Seems to me they don't prevent anything, but rather track it after the fact.


And, on Security the governement has a large role to play:
- Protecting our borders; Which by and large the completely refuse to do unless it means molesting granny and 2 year olds.

- Preventing illegal immigration; Which they also refuse to do.

- Preventing importation of illegal guns and WMD's; Yes, we just export those to drug cartels instead.

- Protecting our commercial naval vessels from Piracy; Ah, yes they do do that.

- Preventing the spread of terrorism against the US and our allies; And that, but like all policies, how successful we are and what the best of course of action is debatable...at least they're trying unlike the boarders and airport security.

Being free doesn't mean having some bureaucrat dictate my life. I'd much rather suffer the consequences of my own actions rather than enjoy the tremendous blessings of a bureaucrats foolishness.

[gunderwood]

The under 30 quote has been valid for 20 years at least. So what does that mean? It means that when you are young, and have little to lose you are ignorant and you side with those that are the same.

Fixed it I think. Idealism isn't bad, nor is it just the young who engage in it. What your ideals are and why determines if they are good or bad. Ignorance is a real factor IMHO due to the appalling state of public education...if you can even call it that. Once you get in the real world you learn to cope with it or it slaps you around. Of course the whole idea behind liberal policy is to remove as many of the consequences of your actions as possible. Of course the only real way to do that is to make you a slave and have others make those decisions for you. Granted, nothing really changes as you just suffer the consequences of their actions vice your own. At least they give you someone to scream at...it's those Capitalists, those rich people who muck everything up. You're still practically a slave, you're life still sucks, but hot d@mn it feels to good to know the devil and get those government guns to put on a charade of screwing him over. Of course the reality is that they just exchange donations for exemptions, but ignorance is bliss.

[OleMan]

Let's see.

And, on economic and safety and commerce issues, the government has a large role to play:
- Creating a fair and competitive marketplace; That exists by two or more people trading freely without government interference. The only reason the government gets involved is because it doesn't like the terms to or more people would freely agree to otherwise.

- Preventing fraud and financial abuse; Amazing job they've been doing there...you know, like the housing market? My bad, government fraud doesn't count.

- Keeping the financial systems stable; I can't believe you actually posted that. Bang up job they've been doing. A fundamental question might be, why do you need government force to keep things aligned to reality? I would've thought that the only purpose of force would be to distort markets into unsustainable positions...kind of by definition you don't need government to decree gravity.

- Regulating the safety and availability of products; Ah, you mean regulation which removes the responsibility and the risk from large companies in exchange for political donations? Or do you mean the general nanny state which has nothing better to do than tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can not own, etc?

- Collecting duties; Why is collecting payments at threat of a gun a good thing?

- Ensuring the flow of international commerce; Ah, you mean "free trade" which is anything but you know, free?

- Ensuring the availability and affordability of health insurance and car insurance and home insurance and business insurance; You live in a fantasy land. Government regulation can not change the cost of anything in real dollars. Sure, they can regulate prices but that simply causes a shortage (demonstrated over and over again and supported by economic theory). Thus, they only thing they can do is hide the true cost by taxing other people for your services. Awesome ethics you have going here.

- Disaster assistance; You mean so that the rest of the country can subsidize people who knowing live in places deemed high risk? Certainly disasters happen and we should help out, but we should not be subsidizing insurance and engineering projects so that people can choose to live in bad places.

- Financial assistance to failed institutions that are essential to our economy; If it's failed it needs to go...it's the fundamental feedback loop of Capitalism. Offer goods and services that others want/need and you makes lots of money...don't and you go broke. Subsidizing failure extremely stupid as you'll just get more of it.

- Preventing monopolies and promoting anti-trust; I think you mean granting monopolies in exchange for political donations...e.g. telcos

- Securing the banking systems; You mean by absorbing all their risk so they are free to make any investment, good or bad, and make money on it? I really need to start a bank.

- Assisting our veterans; We kind of owe that to them as part of their contract of employment.

- Funding our educational systems; Except they don't. At the end of the day those funds come out of my pocket and are used for substandard services.

- Promoting public health policies; Yes, because I don't know that I shouldn't stick screwdrivers in my eye...

- Prevention of disease and epidemics; Seems to me they don't prevent anything, but rather track it after the fact.


And, on Security the governement has a large role to play:
- Protecting our borders; Which by and large the completely refuse to do unless it means molesting granny and 2 year olds.

- Preventing illegal immigration; Which they also refuse to do.

- Preventing importation of illegal guns and WMD's; Yes, we just export those to drug cartels instead.

- Protecting our commercial naval vessels from Piracy; Ah, yes they do do that.

- Preventing the spread of terrorism against the US and our allies; And that, but like all policies, how successful we are and what the best of course of action is debatable...at least they're trying unlike the boarders and airport security.

Being free doesn't mean having some bureaucrat dictate my life. I'd much rather suffer the consequences of my own actions rather than enjoy the tremendous blessings of a bureaucrats foolishness.

A +++, for sure. I'm convinced I need to ascribe to your philosophy or join your political party, as the case may be! If people would only listen, what you said here is a sure cure for drinking too much Leftist Kool AId.

Oleman

[gatlingun6]

lolz, Cody I will get back to you when I get back from work, but only because it amuses me.

Millions (of democrat voters) on welfare depend on me!

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Are you freely admitting that you discriminate against the millions of Republicans who also receive government benefits because they qualify on some basis, such as poverty, disability, etc.? I have never seen a TANF, SSI, disability, medicaid, etc application, but I bet none require the applicant's political affiliation. Nor am I familiar with the interview process for said programs, if any, but I'm sure, the political affiliation and voting record of the recipient is unknown. Or are you saying that in the process of your government job, you are illegally requiring that information? I find it awfully telling that a person who is employed to help others, has utter contempt for the very people they are supposed to help. It's the equivalent of the nurse who hates sick people, or better yet sick people who are unable to pay for their medical costs.

Gat6

[Tweaker]

"Or are you saying that in the process of your government job, you are illegally requiring that information? I find it awfully telling that a person who is employed to help others, has utter contempt for the very people they are supposed to help."

What in the blue fcuk are you talking about? I suggest you increase your medication. STAT

[Tweaker]

Also, why are you talking about my job?

Also, on what basis are you making accusations?

Do I discriminate? Hell yes I do. I make decisions every day in which I recognize a distinction about situations. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

[gatlingun6]

Here's my wish list for federal and state gun laws:::

1. Keep the current restrictions regarding who cannot legally purchase posses or carry a firearm...STRICTLY enforced.
2. Wipe all ATF and federal/state regulations, policies, laws, etc off the books.
3. Focus efforts on enforcing no 1.

As a law abiding citizen I honestly believe I should be able to do whatever I want to with firearms providing of course that doesnt include crimes against people property or killing all the deer in 3 counties on opening day.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mr Z I know you have some sense of humor, so this is a joke, right? I'm sure you didn't mean what you wrote. Repealing the 5 Federal Statues that deal with gun control could be called The Criminal Crime Assistance Act, or the Criminal Full Armament Act. Under Mr Z's administration some of the high points
1. Anyone could be a firearms dealer, no license of any kind required
2. Importation of firearms is unrestricted. They may import whatever they want. Obviously China would kill the domestic firearms industry with a flood of cheap firearms
3. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons is unrestricted
4. Firearms may be manufactured and sold without identifying marks of any kind
5. Hand grenades, grenade launchers, missile launchers, and bombs may be sold on an unrestricted basis
OK enough, I know you didn't really mean it. Actually I want to thank you because I actually read the Federal Statues, which increased my knowledge and understanding of our gun laws, and who or what was behind them. For example domestic manufacturers were the lobby behind a host of firearms import regulations.

Gat6

[gunderwood]

Mr Z I know you have some sense of humor, so this is a joke, right? I'm sure you didn't mean what you wrote. Repealing the 5 Federal Statues that deal with gun control could be called The Criminal Crime Assistance Act, or the Criminal Full Armament Act. Under Mr Z's administration some of the high points

1. Anyone could be a firearms dealer, no license of any kind required Why is that a bad thing? The whole FFL thing only exists so they can enforce compliance with intrusive Federal regulations. Do away with the regulations and you don't need a license to sell a product.

2. Importation of firearms is unrestricted. They may import whatever they want. Obviously China would kill the domestic firearms industry with a flood of cheap firearms If the Chinese do that it's because there is a market demand for cheap Chinese firearms. They can't force any of use to buy them. Personally I don't care for cheap junk and would still refuse to purchase their products. I prefer quality, but that's my choice. Why shouldn't someone who isn't as blessed as I am or simply prefers quantity vice quality or simply wants to spend the difference on something else not be allowed to do so?

3. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons is unrestricted Why is that a problem? It's been demonstrated time and again that arms restrictions don't reduce crime, they simply make it harder for law abiding people to own them. It reminds me of some reports coming out of Iraq. Our guys usually loved it when the Iraqi's would use full auto AKs...they couldn't hit sh*t and you located them instantly by the large glittering rainbow of brass over their heads. There's a reason we dropped full auto most of our infantry weapons...it takes a lot of skill and training to use them more effectively than a semi-auto.

4. Firearms may be manufactured and sold without identifying marks of any kind As it was done for hundreds of years. Again, why is it a problem? Tracing a gun is mostly about finding out which dealer sold it at some point so that you can go harass them with audits. It doesn't change the crime.

5. Hand grenades, grenade launchers, missile launchers, and bombs may be sold on an unrestricted basis Why is that a bad thing? It won't change crime one bit as those weapons are particularly unsuited for the task. They make sense for military operations and terrorism, but not for theft, intimidation, etc. As far as terrorism goes, we already know they have access to those things (like the drug cartels), our boarders are porous as hell, and even if they weren't if you know what you're doing all the parts are available today.

Think about it this way. The difference between a cruise missile and a hobby is an explosive payload.

[Tweaker]

lolz, Cody I will get back to you when I get back from work, but only because it amuses me.

Millions (of democrat voters) on welfare depend on me!

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Are you freely admitting that you discriminate against the millions of Republicans who also receive government benefits because they qualify on some basis, such as poverty, disability, etc.? I have never seen a TANF, SSI, disability, medicaid, etc application, but I bet none require the applicant's political affiliation. Nor am I familiar with the interview process for said programs, if any, but I'm sure, the political affiliation and voting record of the recipient is unknown. Or are you saying that in the process of your government job, you are illegally requiring that information? I find it awfully telling that a person who is employed to help others, has utter contempt for the very people they are supposed to help. It's the equivalent of the nurse who hates sick people, or better yet sick people who are unable to pay for their medical costs.

Gat6

What in the blue fcuk are you talking about? I suggest you increase your medication. STAT

Also, why are you talking about my job?

Also, on what basis are you making accusations?

Do I discriminate? Hell yes I do. I make decisions every day in which I recognize a distinction about situations. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

[gunderwood]

@tweaker

I ate cereal for breakfast this morning and discriminated against last nights pizza...I'm such an awful person!

[Tweaker]

My government job??? I think he ate a bad fish taco last night.

[zephyp]

Here's my wish list for federal and state gun laws:::

1. Keep the current restrictions regarding who cannot legally purchase posses or carry a firearm...STRICTLY enforced.
2. Wipe all ATF and federal/state regulations, policies, laws, etc off the books.
3. Focus efforts on enforcing no 1.

As a law abiding citizen I honestly believe I should be able to do whatever I want to with firearms providing of course that doesnt include crimes against people property or killing all the deer in 3 counties on opening day.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mr Z I know you have some sense of humor, so this is a joke, right? I'm sure you didn't mean what you wrote. Repealing the 5 Federal Statues that deal with gun control could be called The Criminal Crime Assistance Act, or the Criminal Full Armament Act. Under Mr Z's administration some of the high points
1. Anyone could be a firearms dealer, no license of any kind required
2. Importation of firearms is unrestricted. They may import whatever they want. Obviously China would kill the domestic firearms industry with a flood of cheap firearms
3. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons is unrestricted
4. Firearms may be manufactured and sold without identifying marks of any kind
5. Hand grenades, grenade launchers, missile launchers, and bombs may be sold on an unrestricted basis
OK enough, I know you didn't really mean it. Actually I want to thank you because I actually read the Federal Statues, which increased my knowledge and understanding of our gun laws, and who or what was behind them. For example domestic manufacturers were the lobby behind a host of firearms import regulations.

Gat6

Yeee Haaaa!!!!!!!!! Rocket launchers....load em up boys.....

@Gat6 - lets face it...there are always and forever gonna be bad guys in the world (well, until He comes back and wipes it away, but until then) and there isnt anything at all that can be done to stop them from being bad. They are criminals and most likely to stay that way. Sure, we can take one out of circulation but then 3 more takes his/her/its (yes, we have "its" now days) place. So, why not just do away with the dumb laws that restrict guys like me and you so we can legally acquire rocket launchers. The bad guys already have em...course you know that....

[CCFan]

So, why not just do away with the dumb laws that restrict guys like me and you so we can legally acquire rocket launchers.

Wait.... You mean you can't just go to a gun show and purchase these??? I'm gonna have to stop watching the evening news....

[gunderwood]

So, why not just do away with the dumb laws that restrict guys like me and you so we can legally acquire rocket launchers.

Wait.... You mean you can't just go to a gun show and purchase these??? I'm gonna have to stop watching the evening news....

My wife was nanny for a girl who's public school teacher told the class that he went to a gun show and they were selling fully working tanks...guns and all! My wife told her it wasn't true, but she insisted it was because her teacher wouldn't ever lie to her...

And to think my taxes fund this brainwashing!

[zephyp]

So, why not just do away with the dumb laws that restrict guys like me and you so we can legally acquire rocket launchers.

Wait.... You mean you can't just go to a gun show and purchase these??? I'm gonna have to stop watching the evening news....

My wife was nanny for a girl who's public school teacher told the class that he went to a gun show and they were selling fully working tanks...guns and all! My wife told her it wasn't true, but she insisted it was because her teacher wouldn't ever lie to her...

And to think my taxes fund this brainwashing!

Now now Garrett. I know you're much smarter than that. This is a situation that requires delicacy, diplomacy, and finesse. So, git yore butt over to that teacher's house and find out which gun show that was...

[gunderwood]

Now now Garrett. I know you're much smarter than that. This is a situation that requires delicacy, diplomacy, and finesse. So, git yore butt over to that teacher's house and find out which gun show that was...

I'm an idiot! Why lament the lie when I should have been finding out where to get one!

Edit: I'm pretty sure my HOA doesn't have any rules about parking tanks on the street, although after this fictional acquisition they may have to amend the rules. I wonder what class of vehicle that is on the toll road?

[gatlingun6]

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Mr. Tweaker,
President Obama is our President and deserves the minimal level of respect as President, not to mention the most basic human respect. He is the first black President and deserves respect for achieving that status. Your offensive remarks don't help the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Remarks like yours just reinforce the view of the left and the middle that right wing gun nuts are too extremist, and too rude and therefore unable to work in a civil manner with the other side of the aisle to compromise and agree on changes.

Learn to calm your language, show some civility, and you can make progress in liberalizing gun regulations and gun laws. But insulting the other side is not going to help the cause.

Where are the good Virginian manners and neighborliness your momma taught you?

How about actually agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I made? That would be a good start to show you are interesting in getting along.

Dems4Guns

The office of president always deserves respect not the person who occupies it until they actually earn it...obama has not earned mine. Evidenced by his policies which have not and will not work...note the economy suffering and stated unemployment still over 9% and not to mention his tax the rich scheme and spend spend spend...no respect for someone like him...none at all....

**************************************************************************************************************
Well Mr Z that means the only President you've respected over the past 30 years or so would be President Clinton. You remember him, the President who raised taxes, set off an economic and job creation boom, plus finished with a surplus at the Federal level.

If you take what President Obama has actually spent (meaning those new spending bills he has approved), he has spent less than President Reagan, and each President Bush. Somehow there seems to be a belief that the Federal Budget sun-shines annually. It doesn't. For example President's Bush's tax cuts added to the deficit every year after passage and ballooned after the ten year mark, the same goes for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, The Prescription drug benefit, Medicare Advantage, and TARP. These should have been passed under PAY-GO, but it was suspended for all of this spending. Under President Bush the spending for the wars was all off budget, so it made his deficits seem smaller than actual. Two economists posited that the ultimate cost of fighting 2 wars without asking any sacrifice at all from anyone other than the armed forces and their families will ultimately cost us upwards of $5 trillion.

America sent its best and brightest into the cauldron of war while the rest of America treated itself to massive tax cuts, most of which went to the top quintile, and hyper inflated real estate as AMTs. Oh sure, some of us did spend a few bucks to buy an American flag, made in China of course, and a Support the Troops bumper sticker.

All in all Mr Z based on your criteria the only Presidents you can respect are: Obama, Clinton, and Eisenhower.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

The Officeholder IS President Obama. By insulting HIM you ARE insulting the office. You show disrespect for the electoral process and for the American system of government and good old fashioned American civility. Not to mention good manners.

You are just playing with words, but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate. It is perfectly fine to disagree, it is quite another to label him a communist and someone who wants to hurt America. He is trying his best to help America.....you just disagree with HOW he is doing that.

I disagreed with HOW George W Bush was running the government, especially when it came to torture. But I never called him names and never insulted him the way you have insulted our current President...who is the officeholder of the Office of President of the United States....not just the Blue States, but the Red States as well.
Dems4Guns

I am glad you were so kind during the previous administration, but most democrats I know were not. Name calling--which you seem to object with such vigor to-- was the least of it. As far as it being an insult to say his policies are communist--well how about marxist--do you like that better? That is what a great deal of the polices he seems to favor, and the advisers he appoints are awash in. As far as good manners go--well I am a from Texas and my husband is from NY in both places we call it like we see it. A spade is a spade and a rattlesnake had better be called such because it is not a fluffy bunny rabbit. To mince words is to put yourself and others in danger. Crassness is not always needed, but if the president's policies are putting our country in danger (angering our most faithful allies and refusing to see that a grandma is not the same level of threat as a 20 year old man from Yemen (TSA!)), our lives in danger (getting rid of guns under the radar), and our livelihoods in danger(spending ourselves into oblivion, and economic policies that hamstring those that make most of the jobs in this country small business). Then we had better say with all fortitude that this president and his polices have been a disaster and have caused unspeakable harm to millions of Americans.

I would imagine that your anger with Bush on torture was real. Imagine how much more real the anger of a father who lost his job because of the policies enacted by this president when he can't keep a roof over the head of his children and food in their bellies. Imagine the anger of a person who can no longer pay their mortgage because both the husband and wife lost their jobs and they are 55 years old with 7 years left on their mortgage and they have to watch their life savings go down the drain. That type of anger is real and intense and those who love them and have had to watch them go through terribly hard times from no fault of their own are upset as well.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mamabearcali:
Your anger is understandable but misdirected. Maybe you forgot that the economy fell off a cliff under President Bush. Did you forget the Bush tax cut promises, and deregulation? A new era of fantastic growth and job creation would occur accompanied by all that cash trickling down to the middle class. President Bush continued the "Supply Side" economic myth. President Bush's father called it voodoo economics, so did David Stockman, President Reagan's Budget Director. Unfortunately, President Bush's economic policies led the country to the brink of a catastrophic melt down unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. Did you forget the warning President Bush's Treasury Secretary gave in an unprecedented Congressional session? Don't take my word for the economic disaster: As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” To this woeful record add sluggish GDP growth, and stagnant middle class income. Money didn't trickle down, it flooded up!

The middle class spending spree was fueled by debt, i.e. the home as ATM, not increases in wages. By the time the Bush Presidency ended both the nation, and the American consumer had wracked up massive debt. Consumer debt stood at $2.4 trillion dollars, while housing values had declined by $2.8 trillion. If you're angry at President Obama for not cleaning up President Bush's wars, and unmitigated economic Sunami in 2 years , you should be seething at President Bush over his actions. On the freedom front, let's not forget the Patriot Act that shredded the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. While SCOTUS dialed back some of the more onerous provisions, the act still allows the government to look into every thing you do, including your home without your knowledge.

Ideological name calling is empty rhetoric, propaganda unless backed up by actions. So:
1. Give a specific example of Marxist policies in President Obama's administration
2. Which President advanced the "Ownership Society" idea?
3. Which President's head of the SEC literally boasted that the regulators were not doing much to regulate Wall Street.
4. Which President left the Home Mortgage industry totally unregulated?
5. Synthetic securities such as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), Credit Default Swaps (CDSs), etc. exploded under which President, yet were left minimally to unregulated?
6. Which President left Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs) unregulated federally as they reached a trillion plus dollar market.
7. Mortgage fraud and deception occurred on a massive scale, perpetrated by such firms as Countrywide, during what President's watch?
8. Exotic mortgages such as "Pick a Payment" and "name your income" were born during which President's watch?
9. Which President's Federal Reserve Chairman asked mortgage lenders to come up with more creative mortgages?
10. Homeland Security and TSA were created under which President?
11. Which of President Obama's policies is putting our country in danger of what? When? How?
12. From which law abiding citizens has President Obama ordered guns to be seized? How many guns were seized under this order?
13. What specific law, or Executive Order has President Obama signed that "endangers" your life?
14. Beginning with President Eisenhower which American President never angered any of our closest allies?
15. What Federal gun owner's rights legislation was proposed by President Bush in 8 years?

Government expenditures are over 20% of GDP, so estimates for 2011 go as highs as 30%. I ask if government is not spending, consumers are not spending, corporations are not spending, and federal revenues are down, how does massive near term budget cuts create jobs? Where is the near term engine for economic growth if no entity is spending? Behind every federal dollar is a job. In Virginia's Gross State Economic product are significant federal dollars, which lead to primary, secondary and tertiary jobs of every kind.

Here are some closing facts: Under this President federal taxes are at their lowest since the 50s. Corporate America is awash with profits unlike anything they enjoyed during President Bush's administration. Small businesses have actually seen reduced taxes under this President. Further, the President has said he is all for eliminating regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome on small businesses. I would add that neither small nor big businesses create jobs, DEMAND create jobs. In America that means consumer, business, exports, and government spending.

No business is going to create a single job if there is no DEMAND for that good,or service. They are also not going to create a job if they can get their current workers, or a combination of current workers and temps to do the work. Nokia isn't opening a single store in the U.S., therefore no jobs, but Apple is (unfortunately they are also creating manufacturing jobs in China). No amount of tax breaks to Nokia will change that since no one wants their phones, whereas people are still lining up for Apple products. As Warren Buffet once said, only a fool runs his or her business by what Washington does or does not do, and tax cuts per say do not cause me, Buffet, to create a single job.

Where did conservatives get this ridiculous idea that only the economic elite create jobs. Consequently, tax cuts thrown at them willy nilly without guarantees of any economic return has become religion. If every penny of the Bush tax cuts had gone to every middle class quintile an economic boom not fueled by credit would have ensued. Btw Bill Gates, Ray Croc, Steve Jobs, Zuckerman, and a host of others, such as Star Bucks founder didn't start as economic elites.

Off and on I lived in NY for numerous years, I still have relatives in NY, so I'm not sure why you're stereotyping New Yorkers, or Texans for that matter. My son's GF is a Texan, and I know numerous Texans none of whom are anything other than civil, even those who are conservatives. Most families I know span the ideological spectrum, yet they tend not to engage in the kind of name calling without merit you often see here. Personally if posters want to engage in disagreeable rhetoric that's their business, but if called out don't try that 1st Amendment nonsense. No one on this board has 1st Amendment rights. This site is private, and has its own rules and moderators, so please stop asserting that the 1st Amendment has anything to do with interactions between us.

Having said this, do I agree with everything President Obama has done or not done? NOPE, there's plenty with which I disagree. Did I disagree with everything President Bush did? Nope, there were things with which I agreed. Do I, and did I think that President Bush was or is evil? For numerous reasons, NOPE. I just think he was wrong in some of his economic polices, and international strategies.

Gat6
Ok I apologize, I said no more long posts, so maybe that means only a few.

[AncientPaths]

This is the kind of incremental change that Democrats can support.

Which Democrats? Where? Wanna bet?

[gatlingun6]

Let's see.

And, on economic and safety and commerce issues, the government has a large role to play:
- Creating a fair and competitive marketplace; That exists by two or more people trading freely without government interference. The only reason the government gets involved is because it doesn't like the terms to or more people would freely agree to otherwise.

- Preventing fraud and financial abuse; Amazing job they've been doing there...you know, like the housing market? My bad, government fraud doesn't count.

- Keeping the financial systems stable; I can't believe you actually posted that. Bang up job they've been doing. A fundamental question might be, why do you need government force to keep things aligned to reality? I would've thought that the only purpose of force would be to distort markets into unsustainable positions...kind of by definition you don't need government to decree gravity.

- Regulating the safety and availability of products; Ah, you mean regulation which removes the responsibility and the risk from large companies in exchange for political donations? Or do you mean the general nanny state which has nothing better to do than tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can not own, etc?

- Collecting duties; Why is collecting payments at threat of a gun a good thing?

- Ensuring the flow of international commerce; Ah, you mean "free trade" which is anything but you know, free?

- Ensuring the availability and affordability of health insurance and car insurance and home insurance and business insurance; You live in a fantasy land. Government regulation can not change the cost of anything in real dollars. Sure, they can regulate prices but that simply causes a shortage (demonstrated over and over again and supported by economic theory). Thus, they only thing they can do is hide the true cost by taxing other people for your services. Awesome ethics you have going here.

- Disaster assistance; You mean so that the rest of the country can subsidize people who knowing live in places deemed high risk? Certainly disasters happen and we should help out, but we should not be subsidizing insurance and engineering projects so that people can choose to live in bad places.

- Financial assistance to failed institutions that are essential to our economy; If it's failed it needs to go...it's the fundamental feedback loop of Capitalism. Offer goods and services that others want/need and you makes lots of money...don't and you go broke. Subsidizing failure extremely stupid as you'll just get more of it.

- Preventing monopolies and promoting anti-trust; I think you mean granting monopolies in exchange for political donations...e.g. telcos

- Securing the banking systems; You mean by absorbing all their risk so they are free to make any investment, good or bad, and make money on it? I really need to start a bank.

- Assisting our veterans; We kind of owe that to them as part of their contract of employment.

- Funding our educational systems; Except they don't. At the end of the day those funds come out of my pocket and are used for substandard services.

- Promoting public health policies; Yes, because I don't know that I shouldn't stick screwdrivers in my eye...

- Prevention of disease and epidemics; Seems to me they don't prevent anything, but rather track it after the fact.


And, on Security the governement has a large role to play:
- Protecting our borders; Which by and large the completely refuse to do unless it means molesting granny and 2 year olds.

- Preventing illegal immigration; Which they also refuse to do.

- Preventing importation of illegal guns and WMD's; Yes, we just export those to drug cartels instead.

- Protecting our commercial naval vessels from Piracy; Ah, yes they do do that.

- Preventing the spread of terrorism against the US and our allies; And that, but like all policies, how successful we are and what the best of course of action is debatable...at least they're trying unlike the boarders and airport security.

Being free doesn't mean having some bureaucrat dictate my life. I'd much rather suffer the consequences of my own actions rather than enjoy the tremendous blessings of a bureaucrats foolishness.

*************************************************************************************************************
Mr. Gunderwood sounds like you would rather live in Yemen, Somalia, the North Western Territories or the Tribal areas straddling the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, or one of the valleys in Afghanistan. All of the things you want to do, you can without being bothered by that pesky guvmnt in those places. Of course in the anarchic state you so prefer, you might have a problem with some pesky none guvmnt people.

In Gunderwoods world 2 people enter into a contractual agreement. After a bit, one party defaults. Too bad, Gunderwood's government is not in the business of enforcing contracts, or establishing contract law. Call them what you will, rules, laws, regulations, whatever. No market place operates without them. someone or something beyond the individual makes them. The only question is who, or what.

I jokingly said you might prefer Somalia, but wait let's look at Somalia. Let's say you want in on the pirate action. Well it's not that easy. What began as a mission to protect Somalia's waters from predatory foreign fishing vessels, morphed into ship hijacking. Ship hijacking is now a business. It is highly regulated to include a strict division of labor, and an earnings scale. There are ship captains and crew, boarding parties, hostage and ship minders, communications specialists, ransom negotiators, bag men, financiers, risk analysis personnel, purchasing agents, armorers, etc. Who makes the rules, and sets pay? The financiers and their muscle. You want to get fired and banned from the business? Harm or kill a hostage, scuttle an oil tanker, or cargo ship and you're out. The government until recently turned a blind eye, or accepted bribes. No economy can operate for long in a vacuum. Businesses want rules too, albeit they want those rules to favor their business.

You're right government did a terrible job at preventing fraud and abuse in financial markets. You failed to mention that was by CHOICE and they were proud of looking the other way. So corporations like Enron, World Com, Country Wide, and guys like Madoff bilked average and the rich alike out of billions. Mortgaged back securities were totally unregulated and synthetic securities were virtually unregulated. When asked about all this malfeasance, excessive risk taking and out right fraud President Bush's Fed Chair say: He never thought CEOs would act in such a manner. Government didn't distort those markets because government was not involved. I guess you want to return to casino capitalism.

Hey, you can live your life as you wish. You want to smoke, go right ahead. You want to buy prescription drugs and other products in the underground economy fine. You want to buy knockoff products, or rotten food and unsafe food it's all out there. You want to sniff cocaine, pop pills, shoot up heroin, sniff paint, aerosols, etc.fine. As an individual, government will most likely not interfere unless you're careless. I'm glad my neighbor can't legally sh*t on his lawn, or burn sh*t in his backyard. Don't blame me and people like me for allowing Corporations to buy government, it was the conservatives on SCOTUS that conferred full person hood on corporations.

Import duties are fine on certain products, and they are not collected at the point of a gun. What's the problem?

Actually you're not correct, both the VA and DOD pay lower prices for prescription drugs than we do. The price of an airline ticket is a fraction of what it costs you. I guess you forgot that government essentially buys everything that most households buy and more. If government barred anyone who is unable to accept the oil from an oil tanker from bidding on oil, fuel prices would immediately go down as speculators left the market. There are ways short of price controls, which indeed don't work, that government can bend the cost curve.

Businesses hate competition, but again it's conservatives for the most part who love BIG business, the bigger the better. How many Republicans oppose the merger of AT&T with Sprint?

No, he meant international trade. Why do you think President T. Jefferson built a blue water navy, to protect international commerce. You want to know another reason we're in Afghanistan? Here's a hint, check out the planned and competing routes for energy pipelines in that region. Do you think we would give a rat's ass about the Middle East if there was nothing but more sand underneath all that sand?

Yep, you're right we should have let all those banks, and investment houses fail. Never mind that the dominoes were all lined up. Maybe we should have stepped aside and allowed the Chinese to purchase AIG, and the 6 largest banks in America. Sometimes you sound like a tenured college professor who has been divorced from reality for years. There really is such a thing as being dead right.

The only reason banks were free to engage in excessive risk taking is because you wanted it that way. You were fine with regulators looking the other way, and allowing banks to enter ever more exotic and risky financial instruments markets. Why complain now?

Speak for yourself, my kids went to public schools and they did not get a substandard education. Do you know of any thing that can replace public schools? I don't. Besides neither so-called corporate for profit schools, or charter schools are automatically better than the public schools they replaced. There are no silver bullet solutions that can fix the public schools because our problem with education does begin at the school house door, but at the home's door, provided the student has a home. There are those who seek to destroy the public school system whether an individual school is outstanding or not. Primarily because they can't control the curriculum, and can't teach the Judeo-Christian religion, faith, as science, or prohibit any mention of some people such as homosexuals, or teach anything about sex other than abstinence, or plaster the 10 Commandments all over the school. Every American has a stake in seeing that public schools survive and thrive.

Yep the nerve of the government spending money on pure research that has led to elimination of many childhood diseases. Cigarette manufacturers, chemical corporations and pharmaceutical corporations were doing a really fine job at protecting the public from diseases, why in heck did government have to get involved. How dare they engage in mosquito eradication programs, and prevention of diseases in hospitals. The Public Health Service should be ashamed of its inoculation services, and who needs the Centers for Disease Control. The society's health and children's health is of no concern to the government. So what if it's they are a national security and national economy issue.

Please define "prevent illegal immigration" what specifically does that mean? What would I see when that has happened? So the 20 plus thousand border patrol agents only harass granny and kids? As for the TSA while most agents try to do a boring job, you won't find me defending the agency.

Someone in the ATF starts this utterly stupid and dangerous operation with tragic results that allowed approx 1,700 guns to flow to Mexican cartels, and now you're claiming that they allowed almost 30,000 guns to go South? Is that your contention? So the prosecutions of at least one notorious gun dealer and numerous straw purchasers who agreed to cooperate about the number of guns smuggled into Mexico was bogus? There are approx 6,600 FLL holders along our Southern border. I wonder if they are concentrated near legal border crossings. Btw is there any number of military style guns that are purchased by a single individual on a single day that should trigger a report to ATF, or should require the FBI to report to ATF?

As I said before you can live your life whatever way you like as long as your actions don't harm others, or the nation. Most if not all safety devices on plenty of equipment can be defeated or dismantled. If you want to disable safety features on chain saws, power saws, table saws, etc. feel free. A friend's father in-law did, and it only cost him a portion of one finger.

At times I think you're just playing the devil's advocate.

Gat6