The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[whomario]

Originally Posted by molson

More practically, I keep meaning to buy a handgun just for when I'm in the Idaho wilderness alone with my dog (mostly to scare off mountain lions or whatever might see my dog as a threat/prey),

trying to shoot a (maybe charging) mountain lion without at least some prior experience seems pretty low percentage, you might as well get something that makes a helluva loud noise instead (also if you ever come across a mountain lion, pick up your dog to not have him be a small target)

that "guns on the property" thing made me remember this old article of a company selling weapons (made non-functional) to movie/TV productions and stuff : This Is the Massive NYC Gun Depot Where Weapons Are Stored for TV Shows & Movies | TheBlaze.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by whomario

trying to shoot a (maybe charging) mountain lion without at least some prior experience seems pretty low percentage, you might as well get something that makes a helluva loud noise instead (also if you ever come across a mountain lion, pick up your dog to not have him be a small target)

Well ya, the gun making the loud noise is kind of the idea, with the secondary function of putting bullets in something close range in a really worst case scenario.

[thesloppy]

Just strictly as a public service, I think someone needs to explain to every person in this country what semi-automatic means. I've seen plenty of folks I respect and consider intelligent, with whom I fundamentally agree, ruin a well-thought out argument, because they haven't taken the time to learn what they're ranting about.

A semi-automatic weapon fires a single shot, and then automatically reloads a single shot. The term 'semi-automatic' does not refer to the rate of fire in any way, it refers to the ability of a firearm to reload itself, specifically through the force of recoil or gas. There are Civil War era revolvers that are nearly semi-automatic. The $10 nail gun I bought from WalMart could be semi-automatic.

I think there is some degree of fear mongering going on here. In this particular school shooting for example, dude had what could be termed a semi-automatic Bushmaster Assault Rifle, which looks and sounds absolutely terrifying, and positively deadly....but you could just as easily say it was a single-shot .22 rifle with a big clip, made out of plastic, and specifically chambered for shooting only sporting rounds. A bagfull of guns with small magazines is just as deadly as any 'semi-automatic assault rifle', and nearly every one of these tragedies involves multiple guns. As far as devastation and damage goes, everybody over 18 can and will likely remain forever able to buy shotguns that would put any assault rifle to shame, designed specifically for killin', without any sort of check or license necessary.

"Banning assault rifles" as decisive and dramatic as it sounds would only effectively serve to limit the size of certain rifle magazines and cosmetic features, which certainly isn't going to hurt anybody, and I'm not fundamentally against it, but realistically it doesn't really solve all that much of anything either. If we banned assault rifles today, I could probably go buy that exact same Bushmaster .223 rifle tomorrow, it would just have a different name, and have a smaller clip in it.

[KWhit]

This is the correct time to talk about gun control. Something like this happening is the only way there is even a chance for political will and public opinion to be strong enough to even have a national discussion about it.

And this is the right thread to do it in. Suppressing discussion on it here is ridiculous. Relegating it to the Obama thread is silly. It's not about what Obama is going to do about guns. It should be about what all of us as a nation feel about gun culture and what we can do about fixing it. And what all of our elected officials can do about it - it's not an Obama specific issue, so what is that the only place we're allowed to talk about it?

[KWhit]

Actually, banning semi-automatics sounds like a fine idea. Make fuckers like this have to reload manually every time and they'd be a lot less dangerous.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

Take no offense to this, but I really don't think you can realistically be involved in this conversation. People from outside of the US do not understand our culture well enough when it comes to issues such as gun control.

Many people inside the US can't understand the country's fascination with guns either.

[stevew]

Any ban won't mean shit if they just grandfather in all the existing weapons. I think a sensible place to start would be to immediately increase taxes on ammunition to fund mental health initiatives and to eliminate the sale of large multi round magazines.

I'm not sure much else is needed beyond that, or if anything beyond that could even hope to pass.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Actually, banning semi-automatics sounds like a fine idea. Make fuckers like this have to reload manually every time and they'd be a lot less dangerous.

Derringers for everyone?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

or if anything beyond that could even hope to pass.

So punish legitimate sportsmen for the crimes committed by a few?

Srsly?

(Sorry Ben, but there's only so much absurdity I can swallow without response)

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by stevew

Any ban won't mean shit if they just grandfather in all the existing weapons. I think a sensible place to start would be to immediately increase taxes on ammunition to fund mental health initiatives and to eliminate the sale of large multi round magazines.

I'm not sure much else is needed beyond that, or if anything beyond that could even hope to pass.

Yeah, that sounds like a good place to start.

[GrantDawg]

Great article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

[KWhit]

Newtown gun regulations met with absurd resistance.

In Newtown, Conn., a Stiff Resistance to Gun Restrictions - NYTimes.com

This is one of the problems. Even the most banal regulations are fought.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Great article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

I tend to agree. That's probably a bad fight for him to take on. But someone needs to lead it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So punish legitimate sportsmen for the crimes committed by a few?

Srsly?

Seriously.

(cue your normal insult containing more syllables than necessary to make your point)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seriously. (cue your normal insult containing more syllables than necessary to make your point)

Nah. That's too absurd a proposal to get too worked up over. I couldn't believe anyone (outside the looniest elements of the left in Congress) actually said it with a straight face.

Now those folks, well, there's really nothing I'd put past them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And this is the right thread to do it in. Suppressing discussion on it here is ridiculous. Relegating it to the Obama thread is silly. It's not about what Obama is going to do about guns. It should be about what all of us as a nation feel about gun culture and what we can do about fixing it. And what all of our elected officials can do about it - it's not an Obama specific issue, so what is that the only place we're allowed to talk about it?

I think keeping gun control talk out of the other thread is perfectly appropriate. Gun control discussion will quickly overwhelm what that other thread is for - reporting the news, expressing our dismay and showing a little respect for what happended there.

I started this discussion here because Obama IMO will likely lead the charge to control gun ownership (I assume similar to assault weapon ban). I stated I wanted to buy one now.

[gstelmack]

In school shootings, patterns and warning signs - CNN.com

Good point-of-view on gun control. It might help slow down some of these guys, but many of these shootings use guns that were illegal already, and some of the shooters have gone to great lengths to acquire them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

Any ban won't mean shit if they just grandfather in all the existing weapons. I think a sensible place to start would be to immediately increase taxes on ammunition to fund mental health initiatives and to eliminate the sale of large multi round magazines.

I'm not sure much else is needed beyond that, or if anything beyond that could even hope to pass.

I really don't think increasing taxes on ammo will help much. Eliminating the sale of large multi-round magazine may help a little (e.g. 20 rounds down to 10?). Mental health initiatives imply we can identify the "candidates" and I'm not sure thats possible.

Regardless, I agree there is a problem. I am not sure what the solution is right now, have to think through that. I do think its a good time to start the national discussion with the Obama win, the national tragedies etc.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Great article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

Makes sense to me. Bottom line have the grass roots lead it. Obama will be a magnet for criticism which will distract from it. I think the mothers can do a better job.

That campaign should be led from outside the political system, by people who have suffered loss and grief from gun violence. Only that way can the campaign avoid being held hostage by the usual conflict of parties -- Democrats who fear that gun control will lose them rural congressional districts; Republicans who exaggerate for partisan gain exactly what gun control would mean.

Gun control should no more mean the abolition of guns than Mothers Against Drunk Driving abolished the car. Guns are part of the cherished American culture of the outdoors. In many parts of the country, a deer rifle literally puts meat on the table.
:
:
It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

[MacroGuru]

I can't believe I am jumping in here.

I own a lot of guns, I didn't bring them with me to NY due to their staunch regulations on firearms, trust me, I would be serving Jail time here because I refuse to register my guns with the state of NY and lose my rights that I have with them in Utah. So they sit in a gun safe in Utah, with family that uses them when they ask permission.

The biggest thing to me here is society as a whole, especially the younger generation has not grown up with an appreciation for death or it is over sensationalized throughout. Think about it, I am guilty about playing a lot of the same games, but games like Black Ops played online is about upping your kill ratio...you are racking up body counts like no other. Now I am not saying that games cause the killing, I am saying it is part of the overall desensitizing of violence and such to them.

Am I in support of a weapons ban...no. Am I in support of certain regulations to make it a little tougher to get a weapon, absolutely.

But the bigger concern to me in all of the situations and Obama will not say this, even though he will reference the 4 shootings....all 4 (Well 3 so far, this 4 has yet to be determined) have had some sort of disorder with them, whether it was officially diagnosed or not. Why are we not focusing on this? Why is it that we as a country cover our eyes and not help those who need it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Why is it that we as a country cover our eyes and not help those who need it.

Because, as I mentioned elsewhere, "help" is entirely secondary to what's really desired: protection. And deep down, most people know the most effective ways to accomplish that are pre-emptive and, honestly, probably at least bordering on unconstitutional. The majority will dance themselves to death around that reality rather than admit it.

Hell, my teenager noted the similarity in profiles between some of the more school shooters ... and then wisely noted that somewhere around 1/3rd of the kids he knows fit some aspects of that general profile.

There's a paradox between the lectures about "tolerance" and "Born This Way" and "it's okay to be different", etc etc and the reality of mental/emotional illness. And collectively, I have no confidence at all that we can manage to parse that out.

Instead, we'll see efforts to flail uselessly and unforgivably rule the day, as much in the interest of avoiding very hard truths as anything else.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

But the bigger concern to me in all of the situations and Obama will not say this, even though he will reference the 4 shootings....all 4 (Well 3 so far, this 4 has yet to be determined) have had some sort of disorder with them, whether it was officially diagnosed or not. Why are we not focusing on this? Why is it that we as a country cover our eyes and not help those who need it.

Identifying the people that need this kind of help and then determining the proper way to provide that help is a complex and time consuming process. There is no sound-byte solution. People would much rather give the sound-byte answers of ban guns, ban video games, ban music, etc.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because, as I mentioned elsewhere, "help" is entirely secondary to what's really desired: protection. And deep down, most people know the most effective ways to accomplish that are pre-emptive and, honestly, probably at least bordering on unconstitutional. The majority will dance themselves to death around that reality rather than admit it.

Hell, my teenager noted the similarity in profiles between some of the more school shooters ... and then wisely noted that somewhere around 1/3rd of the kids he knows fit some aspects of that general profile.

There's a paradox between the lectures about "tolerance" and "Born This Way" and "it's okay to be different", etc etc and the reality of mental/emotional illness. And collectively, I have no confidence at all that we can manage to parse that out.

Instead, we'll see efforts to flail uselessly and unforgivably rule the day, as much in the interest of avoiding very hard truths as anything else.

I also had additional...desensitized to violence and death argument typed up but deleted because it was getting to wordy and I wasn't going to get my point across without me wanting to hit myself with a ball peen hammer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The least overall intrusive means to have prevented the CT shooting would have been to remove him from the streets. That's the least trampling of rights possible, affecting the fewest number of people. And isn't that really what we're on about here? Protecting the masses from the actions of a select few?

But on what grounds could he have been removed as a threat? Being, by pretty much all accounts, pretty damned odd? So far, that appears to be the most serious thing anyone could pin on him definitively ... prior to Friday.

So that seems to leave us with the question of "how odd is too odd to be left on the streets?[/i]. I can't help but recall the wisdom of an old HS teacher of mine, who was fond of saying (among other things) "Normal is just the average of all us abnormals". And I can't help but think that those "average" abnormals would be the ones left to decide who was dangerously abnormal ... because as that wise old teacher usually finished his comment "... and who wants to be 'average'?" Hell of a mess.

As I mentioned in another discussion elsewhere, whether this sequestration (or mandatory outpatient treatment as a lower level option) takes place under the auspices of the criminal justice system or some hypothetical National Mental Health Service ... it's still the same intrusion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I also had additional...desensitized to violence and death argument typed up but deleted because it was getting to wordy and I wasn't going to get my point across without me wanting to hit myself with a ball peen hammer.

And yet ... my kid's FB post (which I'm assuming you saw in the other thread) tends to mute that argument, considering the enormous digital body count he's racked up since around age 5 or 6.

If you're having that great a problem distinguishing between kids in a classroom and pixels, there were issues long before anybody turned on the console.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And yet ... my kid's FB post (which I'm assuming you saw in the other thread) tends to mute that argument, considering the enormous digital body count he's racked up since around age 5 or 6.

If you're having that great a problem distinguishing between kids in a classroom and pixels, there were issues long before anybody turned on the console.

Yes, but let me ask you this, because my kid has as well. Have you had discussions, education on a few area in regards to death, guns, violence and such?

The reason I ask this is I have, I know many others have and their kids have been able to distinguish specific things..reality vs non....Others I have had discussions with their kids didn't and they never had a frank discussion and their child had yet to experience death in the family and such.

I don't know...I think we as a society are hitting a point where the bulk in general are allowing the "electronic" baby sitter take control (Be it tv, computers or gaming systems) that people have become detached and not active within their kids lives and the extenuating circumstances we have witnessed with the killings and I think to an extent, the bullying suicides.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's a really impressive showing for Bush, considering he wasn't even running

SI

Yeah, I'm an asshole. It was HW, but it was '92, not '96. Bob Dole won the Asian demographic in '96, too, so both years, it's still relevant: the Republican candidate carried Asians against Clintons

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe not quite THAT simple, but if Bush could get 40% of the Hispanic vote, a strong Hispanic Republican would have to be able to pull a strong majority. As a group, Hispanic-Americans are still somewhat socially conservative.

The problem is twofold. On the one hand, as someone else pointed out, Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans are almost two different demographics. They're both Hispanic, but they're different enough that you can't simply run a Cuban-American for President and wait for Latino votes to roll in.

And then it comes back to rhetoric. An Hispanic-American who's going to be acceptable to the white male wing of the party is probably an Hispanic-American who's willing to talk the talk on illegal immigration. If said candidate is either non-committal or starts talking about amnesty/path to citizenship/etc in a primary, their candidacy is probably DOA.

You can't just run the candidate out there and expect the demographic to go "Oh, things have changed. They accept me now. Cool." You have to lay that groundwork.

And that goes back to what I was saying. The Republican Party needs to stop with the social rhetoric targeted at women and minorities if it hopes to win national elections. If you paint all Hispanics as illegals and moochers as a party, you're probably not going to attract Hispanic voters to your party even at GWB levels, never mind flipping the script on the Democrats.

If you continue to proclaim that Muslims are terrorists and shouldn't get to build mosques because this is America, etc, they're going to vote for the Democrats. And since birthrates among Muslims are higher than they are against white Christians in this country...that's a demographic trend that will just hurt the Republicans the longer it continues.

If you continue to paint women as sluts who kill babies because it's easier than not having sex, you're going to continue to lose women, and since women make up a greater percentage of the electorate than men do...

Social rhetoric wins you nominations. It wins you House races. In some states, it wins you Senate races. It won't win you Presidencies unless you manage to depress the female and minority vote at this point.

As Dutch pointed out, that's just demographic math. Every election cycle that passes, the white vote is less powerful than it was the one before.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Yes, but let me ask you this, because my kid has as well. Have you had discussions, education on a few area in regards to death, guns, violence and such?

The reason I ask this is I have, I know many others have and their kids have been able to distinguish specific things..reality vs non....Others I have had discussions with their kids didn't and they never had a frank discussion and their child had yet to experience death in the family and such.

He's a history buff by nature (or some really really early nuture) so we've probably had an abnormally high number of those conversations. There's hardly a game he's played that hasn't prompted more than one conversation about all manner of things (often socio-political and/or historical).

I don't know...I think we as a society are hitting a point where the bulk in general are allowing the "electronic" baby sitter take control (Be it tv, computers or gaming systems) that people have become detached and not active within their kids lives and the extenuating circumstances we have witnessed with the killings and I think to an extent, the bullying suicides.

See, that's not a video game issue IMO. That's a parenting issue.

[kingfc22]

This article pretty much nails my view point on the matter:

Gun Control Is Just the Latest Issue Where Facts Lose Out to Emotions and Paranoia

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If you paint all Hispanics as illegals and moochers as a party, you're probably not going to attract Hispanic voters to your party even at GWB levels, never mind flipping the script on the Democrats.

If you continue to proclaim that Muslims are terrorists and shouldn't get to build mosques because this is America, etc, they're going to vote for the Democrats. And since birthrates among Muslims are higher than they are against white Christians in this country...that's a demographic trend that will just hurt the Republicans the longer it continues.

You lost me here. All Republicans don't hold these views that "all hispanics are illegals and moochers", or that "Muslims are terrorists." I know it's a very popular strategic strategy to paint the situation as such, but it's obnoxious.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

This article pretty much nails my view point on the matter:

Gun Control Is Just the Latest Issue Where Facts Lose Out to Emotions and Paranoia

I want to know what internet that guy's on where he's "not allowed to discuss gun control".

"Back to gun control. What most people are talking about is not banning guns completely, but putting in place some reasonable restrictions that would provide a line of defense against mass killings like the one in Newtown without infringing on what most people consider reasonable uses for guns. Assault rifles, automatic weapons, weapons that don't need reloading, megaclips, etc. aren't meant for hunting or sport. "

I think most people are in favor of "reasonable" gun control restrictions. So it's hard to see what the point is when people start talking like this. He's taken a very moderate gun control stance, and he's putting it up against an extreme gun-rights stance, in order to sound as reasonable as possible in his article. But that's not really the relevant debate here. The debate isn't between having moderate regulations v. having none at all. When you frame it like that it's a little too easy. We already have regulations in place (the author doesn't seem to know that felons already can't legally buy guns). The question is whether there are additional regulations that would be beneficial when balanced against rights, what those regulations are, and how effective those additional regulations are v. addressing other types of issues like mental health.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

You lost me here. All Republicans don't hold these views that "all hispanics are illegals and moochers", or that "Muslims are terrorists." I know it's a very popular strategic strategy to paint the situation as such, but it's obnoxious.

Except the most vocal wings of the party hold exactly those views. And that's the problem. The fringe members yell the loudest and get the press, and the saner members of the party don't tell them to sit down and shut up, because doing so will cost them base support.

And so a view that Republican A may not hold gets attributed to him because Republican B *does* hold it, and Republican A would rather attack the Democrat than tell Republican B to go play in traffic and let the adults handle matters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except the most vocal wings of the party hold exactly those views. And that's the problem. The fringe members yell the loudest and get the press, and the saner members of the party don't tell them to sit down and shut up, because doing so will cost them base support.

And so a view that Republican A may not hold gets attributed to him because Republican B *does* hold it, and Republican A would rather attack the Democrat than tell Republican B to go play in traffic and let the adults handle matters.

Which vocal Republicans are proclaiming that "all Hispanics are illegal and moochers"?

[Noop]

I would gladly give up my right to have a semi-auto weapon if I am allowed to smoke weed legally.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Noop

I would gladly give up my right to have a semi-auto weapon if I am allowed to smoke weed legally.

For whatever it's worth, you DO give up your right to own a firearm as soon as you become a "legal" MMJ user. Which is surely why we've seen such a major decrease in cancerous stoner gun violence.

[JediKooter]

You can have my Medical Marijuana card when you can pry my Doritos out of my cold dead hands.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

For whatever it's worth, you DO give up your right to own a firearm as soon as you become a "legal" MMJ user. Which is surely why we've seen such a major decrease in cancerous stoner gun violence.

Interesting. I have a friend in Colorado that must have fallen through the cracks on this. I don't know where he bought his guns, but ya, it looks like people are getting turned away if they have a medical marijuana card. Just reading a little about it, its kind of funny to see stoners up in arms about gun control regulations. Though in Colorado, there's probably a ton more overlap in the weed smoking and gun communities than there are in most other places.

[Edward64]

A little ironic.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...cre/?iid=HP_LN

Do you know who owns more than a 6% stake in the maker of .223 Bushmaster rifles, like the one used last Friday to murder 20 first graders and seven adults in Newtown, Connecticut? California public schoolteachers.

The company in question is Freedom Group, a privately-held firearms conglomerate formed by private equity and hedge fund group Cerberus Capital Management. Cerberus created the platform in April 2006 via the acquisition of Bushmaster, after which it added another 10 makers of firearms, ammunition and accessories (including Remington, Marlin Arms and Barnes Bullets).

The California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) committed to invest a whopping $500 million into a $7.5 billion Cerberus fund that has helped bankroll Freedom Group. That means that it effectively could own a 6.67% stake in the gun maker, which filed to go public in late 2009 before pulling the offering in early 2011. In fact, the figure could be even higher since CalSTRS also committed $100 million to a $1 billion predecessor fund, which likely made the original investment.

[Edward64]

I enjoyed the series but I understand ...

Discovery hit ‘American Guns’ canceled as Hollywood wrestles with links to gun violence | Fox News

Discovery Channel’s popular reality show about a family of gun makers, “American Guns," came under intense scrutiny in the wake of Friday’s mass shooting at a Connecticut grade school, with people flooding the show’s Facebook page calling for its cancelation.

“I know you all have to make money but would Discovery Channel PLEASE consider ceasing to broadcast the show in the U.K.? Sadly your program makes buying/owning guns seem fun, glamorous, even normal,” wrote one. Another tweeted, “Dear Discovery Channel: it’s not appropriate showing the program American Guns now!” Another weighed in: “With Discovery shows like 'Sons of Guns', 'American Guns', 'Ted Nugent's Gun Country' etc it's not surprising how guns r seen as acceptable.”

It seems the critics may have been heard.

A Discovery rep told FOX411 that “American Guns” – which is out of production and not currently broadcasting new episodes – has been canceled and will not return for a third season. This comes as something of a surprise given its growing popularity. The show had a 50 percent ratings increase for its second season premiere, and one of its stars, Renee Wyatt, recently said she would “definitely” be interested in returning for season three. The rep, however, would not link the show’s cancelation to the Connecticut school massacre.

[Edward64]

Getting closer!

Obama Makes Third Fiscal Cliff Offer

WASHINGTON -- The White House made a new offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The proposal matches the amount of spending cuts with revenue-raisers, calls for two stimulus measures and seeks an avoidance of a debt limit fight for the next two years.

The details of the offer were sent to The Huffington Post on condition of the source's anonymity.

The White House has moved off of its initial and second revenue demands of $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion respectively. As of now, the president would be fine raising $1.2 trillion in revenue. He also is no longer insisting that taxes increase on families with income above $250,000. Instead, he is calling for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $400,000.

To meet the $1.2 trillion revenue goals, the White House proposal calls for limiting the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent for taxpayers. It would return the estate tax to 2009 parameters, which would mean that estates worth more than $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate.

The compromise on revenue may be difficult for some in the president's own party to swallow, though few would have imagined the White House scoring such a victory just one year ago. The spending cuts in the new proposal could be a harder sale.

In his latest offer to Boehner, the president proposes $800 billion in savings, including $290 billion in interest savings, $100 in defense cuts, and $130 billion in savings that would come from an adjustment to the inflation index for Social Security benefits. The administration insisted that there would be "protections for most-vulnerable populations" perhaps by indexing the changes so that they don't affect those with low-income.

The president has refused to give in on another Republican demand: that he gradually raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. There is, however, $400 billion in health care savings included in his offer.

Additional components of the proposal include language that would call for the fast track pursuit of corporate and individual tax reform as well as "spending reform." The White House proposal calls for a permanent extension of certain tax extenders (which ones weren't made entirely clear) and the alternative minimum tax. The payroll tax cut passed two years ago would, under this proposal, be allowed to lapse without an apparent replacement -– a major blow for progressive economists, who argue that the economy is too fragile to take such a hit.

The president is, however, pursuing some provisions that would make his base pleased. His plan calls for an extension of unemployment benefits -- set to expire at the end of this year -– and money for infrastructure spending. How much money is unclear, though the president's first offer asked for $50 billion. Finally, he is demanding that the nation's debt limit be increased for two years. He will continue to allow Congress the right to periodically vote not to raise the ceiling, but he would grant himself veto power over those votes.

That may be too much for Boehner to swallow. In his last offer, the speaker signaled comfort with a yearlong extension of the debt ceiling, but nothing more.

An administration official said that this was not the president's "final offer," but one that the White House viewed as a legitimate halfway point between the two sides. The official noted that the president already agreed to a trillion dollars in spending cuts as part of the first debt-ceiling standoff. When adding those figures to this plan, one gets to $3.4 trillion in deficit reduction. When considering war savings, that number goes up to well over $4 trillion over a 10-year period.

[JPhillips]

If there is no deal on debt ceiling increases the White House should jump off the cliff. As long as the GOP is committed to risking the credit of the USA there isn't any reason to make a deal. They'll just renig in a few months when the debt ceiling needs to be lifted.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

Interesting. I have a friend in Colorado that must have fallen through the cracks on this. I don't know where he bought his guns, but ya, it looks like people are getting turned away if they have a medical marijuana card. Just reading a little about it, its kind of funny to see stoners up in arms about gun control regulations. Though in Colorado, there's probably a ton more overlap in the weed smoking and gun communities than there are in most other places.

Once you cross the line from the millions of unwashed, casual stoners, into the (also unwashed) hardcore/old school/bikers/growers/mmj/activist crowd it's fascinating to see how the political compass almost completely reverses in a lot of cases. Lots of libertarians and gun rights in general, but perhaps most surprisingly a lot of vehemently anti-Obama sentiment from ostensibly liberal folks, mostly thanks to increased DEA raids on dispensaries, and marijuana bust numbers vs. GWB. A sentiment I share, frankly.

[JPhillips]

The GOP could also rig the elections to stay alive.

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Already, two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The candidate who wins the most votes statewide takes the final two at-large electoral votes. Only once, when President Obama won a congressional district based in Omaha in 2008, has either of those states actually split their vote.

But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.

All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.

Obama won all three states in 2008, handing him 46 electoral votes because of the winner-take-all system. Had electoral votes been awarded by district, Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have cut into that lead. Final election results show that Romney won nine of Michigan's 14 districts, five of eight in Wisconsin, and at least 12 of 18 in Pennsylvania. Allocate the two statewide votes in each state to Obama and that means Romney would have emerged from those three Democratic states with 26 electoral votes, compared with just 19 for Obama (and one district where votes are still being counted).

Republicans are able to contemplate such a bold plan because of their electoral success in 2010, when the party won control of state legislative chambers and the governorships in all three states, giving them total control over the levers of state government.

"If you did the calculation, you'd see a massive shift of electoral votes in states that are blue and fully [in] red control," said one senior Republican taking an active role in pushing the proposal. "There's no kind of autopsy and outreach that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly."

The proposals, the senior GOP official said, are likely to come up in each state's legislative session in 2013. Bills have been drafted, and legislators are talking to party bosses to craft strategy. Saul Anuzis, the former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, has briefed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and Chief of Staff Jeff Larson on his state's proposal. The proposal "is not being met with the 'We can't do that' answer. It's being met with 'I've already got a bill started,' " the official said.

Republican state legislators are motivated to act after Romney's loss. And the party lost legislative seats in all three states, adding urgency to pass the measures before voters head to the polls in 2014.

Tweaks of electoral-vote rules are hardly unprecedented, according to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University. State legislatures routinely changed Electoral College allocation rules in the early years of the Republic; the political fallout then can inform present-day lawmakers considering the changes.

"State legislative elections became tantamount to the presidential election in a state. Local issues were put aside for presidential politics," McDonald said. "These states legislators thus risk the nationalization of their state politics, to the detriment of their personal careers. State legislators learned that once they fixed the Electoral College rules, national politics no longer dominated state elections."

In the long run, Republican operatives say they would like to pursue similar Electoral College reform in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Obama won all three states, but Romney won a majority of the congressional districts in each state.

Any changes to the allocation of Electoral College votes would have a major impact on each party's path to the White House. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have given Democrats their collective 246 electoral votes in each of the last six elections. That virtually forces Republicans to run the swing-state table.

But rewriting the rules would dramatically shrink or eliminate the Democratic advantage, because of the way House districts are drawn. The decennial redistricting process has dumped huge percentages of Democratic voters into some urban districts, while Republican voters are spread over a wider number of districts, giving the party an advantage. This year, Democratic House candidates won more than 1 million more votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

And if Republicans go ahead with their plan, Democrats don't have the option of pushing back. After the 2010 wave, Democrats control all levers of government in only one state -- West Virginia -- that Romney won this year. Some consistently blue presidential states have Republican legislatures; the reverse is not true.

Some Republicans acknowledge that the party would open itself up to charges of political opportunism, but that they would frame the proposal as a chance to make the system more fair.

"With the frustration of the current system—and the fact that almost everyone would agree proportional or CD is more representative and maybe more fair than the current winner-take-all—Republicans have a strong, righteous argument," Anuzis said. "However, the motivation would be viewed as being purely political since it hasn’t been done before."

[DaddyTorgo]

If you can't win by the rules, just change the rules.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A little ironic.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...cre/?iid=HP_LN

That was quick.

Cerberus to Sell Gunmaker Freedom Group - NYTimes.com

The private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday that it would sell its investment in the gunmaker Freedom Group in response to the school shootings last week in Connecticut.

Cerberus acquired Bushmaster — the manufacturer of the rifle used by the gunman in the Newtown attacks that killed 27 people, including 20 schoolchildren — in 2006.

The private equity giant later merged it with other gun companies to create Freedom Group, which reported net sales of $677.3 million for the nine months that ended in September 2012, a 20 percent increase compared with the same period last year.

“It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level,” Cerberus said in a news release.

[Edward64]

I don't know if this is good or bad right now, but I like how with Obamacare they are thinking outside the box. In my mind, there are (1) providers (2) payers (3) pharma (4) medical products. Good start but this still leaves (3) and (4).

Hospital systems to form their own insurance company | www.ajc.com

Piedmont and WellStar, two of Atlanta’s largest hospital systems, said Monday they are forming an insurance company — a bold move in a rapidly changing health care marketplace.

By elbowing their way into the domain of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna and United Healthcare, the hospital systems could dramatically increase the competition in the state’s insurance marketplace. The move could also change the way patients get care, because the hospital systems will have a financial stake in keeping patients healthy and controlling costs.

The impact could be especially significant if the Piedmont-WellStar health plan is included on the health law’s insurance exchange, where many Georgians will shop for plans and qualify for federal subsidies to help pay for their coverage in 2014.

“The reason this is such a big deal is that it creates a considerable amount of competition within the health insurance market in Georgia that many feared would not happen with the exchange — that it would be two or three big insurers, and that’s it,” said Bill Custer, a health care expert at Georgia State University.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

That was quick.

Cerberus to Sell Gunmaker Freedom Group - NYTimes.com

1) Isn't this selling low?
2) Isn't the damage already done to Cerberus's brand name?
3) Seriously? You're named after the three headed dog from hell. Are you really worried about damage to your brand name?

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If there is no deal on debt ceiling increases the White House should jump off the cliff. As long as the GOP is committed to risking the credit of the USA there isn't any reason to make a deal. They'll just renig in a few months when the debt ceiling needs to be lifted.

And as long a the democrats aren't interested in significant spending cuts ("let's raise taxes now and worry about spending later" my butt), we should jump off the cliff.

Heck, I've reached a point where I think we ought to jump off the cliff anyway. Get the revenue increases and spending cuts necessary to start reducing our debt, and maybe piss people off enough to get more fresh faces into office.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yeah, I'm an asshole. It was HW, but it was '92, not '96. Bob Dole won the Asian demographic in '96, too, so both years, it's still relevant: the Republican candidate carried Asians against Clintons

No, I believe you were inaccurate. I was the a-hole for pointing it out

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

1) Isn't this selling low?
2) Isn't the damage already done to Cerberus's brand name?
3) Seriously? You're named after the three headed dog from hell. Are you really worried about damage to your brand name?

SI

Especially since they are trying establish an absolute monopoly of oil resources and supplies.