No. of Recommendations: 4
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/white-house-nra-g...

The White House and gun control supporters are gearing up for a whirlwind month, with plans to pass reform legislation before outrage over the Sandy Hook massacre has a chance to fade.

While the fiscal cliff has dominated Washington’s attention in recent weeks, lawmakers and activists are laying the groundwork for their big push. Vice President Joe Biden, tasked with heading a commission to investigate gun violence, has been quietly meeting with experts, interest groups, and public officials and is expected to release a set of recommendations within weeks. Boston mayor Thomas Menino, co-chair of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told the Boston Herald this week that an optimistic Biden had assured him that Obama would sign legislation “by the end of January.”

“We had been led to believe their report would come by end of January, but we’re hearing they may want to have something out by January 15, even quicker than expected,” Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM.
----------------------------------------------------------
A sense of urgency we never got from Fast & Furious or Benghazi. I wonder why? Never let a massacre go to waste.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And none of these Political Opportunist Dis-Armers say a word for even one, or all those kids slain...

.... in Chicago.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A sense of urgency we never got from Fast & Furious or Benghazi. I wonder why? Never let a massacre go to waste.
__________________________

That is simply because Republicans and Conservatives in particular do not understand that actually governing in today's America means that you have to win the game as well as try to have better policy.

They have gone for the low hanging fruit of better policies than the Dems. Then they back off on winning the games required to implement those better policies.

Do I wish they did not have to play games, like banging the living hell out of Fast and Furious and Benghazi instead of backing off with a recalcitrant press? Sure, but those actually should have been extremely big issues, and they should still be screaming from the rooftops about it, but once they backed off for even a second it looks nothing but political whereas if they had never backed off it would look like it was actually important to them --as it damn well should have been and should be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do I wish they did not have to play games, like banging the living hell out of Fast and Furious and Benghazi instead of backing off with a recalcitrant press? Sure, but those actually should have been extremely big issues, and they should still be screaming from the rooftops about it, but once they backed off for even a second it looks nothing but political whereas if they had never backed off it would look like it was actually important to them --as it damn well should have been and should be.
--------------------------------------------------------
While i agree in a way i also don't think it's possible with the media we have. Remember Reverend Wright? Remember one of the news outlets said we aren't going to cover it anymore? It's like the tree in the forrest thing. I have no doubt that if Benghazi or Fast & Furious was under Bush there'd be impeachment hearings and court proceedings and heads rolling. You'd know Brian Terry's place of birth and hear from everyone he's ever known. I'm still shocked at how nothing ever happened about Sandy Berger, yet Scooter Libby went to jail for outing someone who was outed already. The media really does this country a disservice, to put it mildly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
While i agree in a way i also don't think it's possible with the media we have. Remember Reverend Wright? Remember one of the news outlets said we aren't going to cover it anymore? It's like the tree in the forrest thing. I have no doubt that if Benghazi or Fast & Furious was under Bush there'd be impeachment hearings and court proceedings and heads rolling. You'd know Brian Terry's place of birth and hear from everyone he's ever known. I'm still shocked at how nothing ever happened about Sandy Berger, yet Scooter Libby went to jail for outing someone who was outed already. The media really does this country a disservice, to put it mildly.
____________________

I agree the media does the country a major disservice

I disagree that there is a tree falling in the forest thing going on

NEVER STOP. At some point people will wonder why you are keeping it alive. Keep saying this is important, and you can make it important.

This is not Reverend Wright. This is not guilt by association, these are very different topics.

There is no nuance here, it is straight unadulterated wrong.

Again, they should never have backed off on Sandy Berger, we should have heard it from every Republican every time they spoke, every interview done with a Republican the Republicans should make it an issue until people ask questions about it.

Put it right out there as a strategy and stick to it. The press is not covering this stuff, we will mention it every time you see one of us on the air, we will put it in every time you see one of us, until you either stop putting Republicans on the air or cover it.

IT needs to be at every level of being a Republican. They need to turn the press, they have to out the press. They have lost unless they can redefine the game. Make it so tiresome that folks look into it just to decide they can ignore the Republican Rhetoric and find out HOLY COW this is really an issue that no one told me about, and it is big!

That will not happen until the Republicans use the only tool available to them, the fact that the networks have to put Republicans on. They have to make their points on things that the press MUST acknowledge, they have to do it constantly until it is embarrassing to both parties, until people actually start asking why do Republicans keep saying that.

They have to know as the game is now, they lose. They must change the game, and the game is perception.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
A sense of urgency we never got from Fast & Furious or Benghazi. I wonder why? Never let a massacre go to waste.
__________________________

That is simply because Republicans and Conservatives in particular do not understand that actually governing in today's America means that you have to win the game as well as try to have better policy.

They have gone for the low hanging fruit of better policies than the Dems. Then they back off on winning the games required to implement those better policies.


I disagree. Republicans blew it by having horrible policies. The Bush tax cuts and Bush's wars were such huge talking points because spending increased under Bush and we started running large deficits. If we had contained spending, it would not have been nearly as big an issue. And don't get me started on the Medicare prescription benefit.

Republicans under Bush should have taken the opportunity to continue to decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, and then we should have run surpluses even after the so-called tax cuts. They could have been the party of fiscal responsibility, but they blew it.

Also, we should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan after only a few years. We should have trained them to defend themselves as quickly as possible and then gotten the heck out of there. Instead, these wars continue to hurt Republicans more than a decade later.

Republicans need to re-brand themselves and need to stick to the new brand. From an economic policy standpoint, they have to be adamant about low marginal tax rates, low spending, low regulation, and a strong dollar. They have to stop this Keynesian nonsense. The low spending has to come first, starting *now*. It is extremely difficult to sell low tax rates when you are spending like crazy and running massive deficits.

Will Republicans do it? Not a chance in hell. They don't have a backbone. They don't have the courage to do what's right because they know that it will be politically difficult in the short run because it will take time to restore the trust that has been lost. Until Republicans clarify their principles and then act consistently with those principles, they will just continue to flounder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Republicans need to re-brand themselves and need to stick to the new brand. From an economic policy standpoint, they have to be adamant about low marginal tax rates, low spending, low regulation, and a strong dollar. They have to stop this Keynesian nonsense. The low spending has to come first, starting *now*. It is extremely difficult to sell low tax rates when you are spending like crazy and running massive deficits.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------
Will Republicans do it? Not a chance in hell. They don't have a backbone. They don't have the courage to do what's right because they know that it will be politically difficult in the short run because it will take time to restore the trust that has been lost. Until Republicans clarify their principles and then act consistently with those principles, they will just continue to flounder.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think it will be politically difficult in the short run....and long run because it's always easy to paint someone who isn't spending like crazy as not caring for the poor and all that. Look at what is happening with Sandy relief, the republicans hold up a bill of 60 billion because over half is pork and not only are democrats pounding them but republicans are too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Amen!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Republicans need to re-brand themselves and need to stick to the new brand

Right now, the GOP is Dem-lite. They are adamant about not allowing the TP a seat at the table and tolerate them only because of the votes they bring in.

I'm done with them. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils only to be disrespected and abused for my efforts. They sure cashed my checks for the Romney campaign, however.

I used to cinsider myself part of the Libertarian wing of the GOP, but it is obvious that they consider folks like me a nuisance to be tolerated at best.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think it will be politically difficult in the short run....and long run because it's always easy to paint someone who isn't spending like crazy as not caring for the poor and all that. Look at what is happening with Sandy relief, the republicans hold up a bill of 60 billion because over half is pork and not only are democrats pounding them but republicans are too.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Republicans should be *loudly* denouncing all the pork in the bill and criticizing anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- who added pork to it. They should have stood up to Chris Christie and said that they absolutely will not stand for such a fiscally irresponsible bill. They could have used this opportunity to begin to brand themselves as the fiscally responsible party, but they won't. They will just continue to let people beat them up.

We need *leaders* with sound principles. Instead we have a bunch of cowards with shaky principles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I disagree. Republicans blew it by having horrible policies. The Bush tax cuts and Bush's wars were such huge talking points because spending increased under Bush and we started running large deficits. If we had contained spending, it would not have been nearly as big an issue. And don't get me started on the Medicare prescription benefit.
_____________________

You got me wrong if you think I said Republicans ahd good policies, they merely had better policies

They need to be out screaming from the rooftops that say Plan B?? That was what we did because the Dems wanted something bigger and more expenisve and they need to say it until it becomes known, Dems tell lies and repeat them until they are true, I am only asking Republicans to repeat truth until it becomes true

Republicans need to get out there and put Clinton as God on display and scream Clinton agreed with the actions on IRaq and Obama agreed on the action in Afghanistan only made it bigger.

DO I wish there was a party that was right as opposoed to less wrong ? Absolutely

DO I think the party that was more wrong should be in power because the guys who were and are less wrong made mistakes?? ????

The less wrong party needs to be in power regularly. Then the more wrong party will strive to be less wrong to get power, and the pendulum can move toward improvement

That is not happening now, the less wrong party has to behave like the more wrong party because that is the only things that are acknowledged as good things.

You can vote libertarian and go all Jedi and root for collapse, but I would rather see the less wrong party getting on their soapbox and making their case. Then the Dems can do the same when the Republicans are the more wrong party.

If I saw the system changing I would suggest something different. The system needs decent =information to function, right now the system is broken, I do not think it will be replaced, so there you have it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Bush tax cuts and Bush's wars were such huge talking points because spending increased under Bush and we started running large deficits. If we had contained spending, it would not have been nearly as big an issue. And don't get me started on the Medicare prescription benefit.

But look at what happened, the Dems blasted Bush over spending, then they amped it up several magnitudes and now they are silent on spending under Obama. If they didn't beat up Bush on spending it would have been over something else.

I, like most regulars here, blasted Bush for spending, Part D, NCLB, and his other examples of federal overreach. Did ANY of that matter to our lib trolls?

If you made a nice comment on Bush's ties, they'd scream that that was "proof" you approved of everything Bush ever did or thought of doing.

If you pointed out how over-the-top their criticism was of Bush and how the same standard was not being applied to Dems, you'd get the same treatment.

If you did not hate Bush as irrationally and completely as they did, it was "proof" that you hated children, puppies, the elderly, etc....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yew da man!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Bush tax cuts and Bush's wars were such huge talking points because spending increased under Bush and we started running large deficits. If we had contained spending, it would not have been nearly as big an issue. And don't get me started on the Medicare prescription benefit.

But look at what happened, the Dems blasted Bush over spending, then they amped it up several magnitudes and now they are silent on spending under Obama. If they didn't beat up Bush on spending it would have been over something else.


The problem was never really about spending, per se. The problem was the deficits. Democrats blamed the deficits on tax cuts and wars, tax cuts and wars, tax cuts and wars, over and over again. Few people care enough to learn the true drivers of the deficits, so it was effective. They couldn't have criticized Bush for "unfunded" tax cuts and wars if we were running surpluses.

Would Democrats try to find something else to criticize Republicans about? Of course, but at least Republicans wouldn't have turned off so many conservatives, libertarians, and those in the center with their fiscal irresponsibility.

I voted for Bush in 2000. By the 2004 election, I was already disgusted with Bush and Republicans and vowed never to vote for the lesser of two evils again. Republicans lost a lot of voters like me over the years.

Republicans will *never* get the votes of liberals and those in favor of a large welfare state, but they don't need to. They just need to stop turning off voters that would never vote Democrat (like me) and those that are on the fence.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did not vote for Bush either the second time for many of the same reasons. There were other issues as well for me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you made a nice comment on Bush's ties, they'd scream that that was "proof" you approved of everything Bush ever did or thought of doing.

Oh, it wasn't that difficult to "prove" that you approved of everything Bush ever did or thought of doing.

All you had to do was say "<insert Democrat's name>'s ties are even uglier than Bush's."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Republicans blew it by having horrible policies. The Bush tax cuts and Bush's wars were such huge talking points because spending increased under Bush and we started running large deficits. If we had contained spending, it would not have been nearly as big an issue. And don't get me started on the Medicare prescription benefit.

Republicans under Bush should have taken the opportunity to continue to decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, and then we should have run surpluses even after the so-called tax cuts. They could have been the party of fiscal responsibility, but they blew it.

Also, we should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan after only a few years. We should have trained them to defend themselves as quickly as possible and then gotten the heck out of there. Instead, these wars continue to hurt Republicans more than a decade later.

Republicans need to re-brand themselves and need to stick to the new brand. From an economic policy standpoint, they have to be adamant about low marginal tax rates, low spending, low regulation, and a strong dollar. They have to stop this Keynesian nonsense. The low spending has to come first, starting *now*. It is extremely difficult to sell low tax rates when you are spending like crazy and running massive deficits.

Will Republicans do it? Not a chance in hell. They don't have a backbone. They don't have the courage to do what's right because they know that it will be politically difficult in the short run because it will take time to restore the trust that has been lost. Until Republicans clarify their principles and then act consistently with those principles, they will just continue to flounder.


It's not often that I agree with you so this is very nice :-)
I agree with pretty much everything you said above. The one disagreement is: I don't think we needed to be in Iraq in the first place. I have no clue why we went in at all and what we were supposed to achieve anyway. When I saw Bush under the "Mission Accomplished" banner, I was confused because I didn't know what the mission actually was.
Afghanistan war, to me, is more defensible. We ousted Taliban who sheltered al Qaeda (our enemies.) But we should have then turned over the country to Northern Alliance and concentrated solely on finding bin Laden and other al Qaeda members. No need for so much nation building directly. If you really want, give them some money (like we do to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, etc) and then let them figure out how to squander it :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Until Republicans clarify their principles and then act consistently with those principles, they will just continue to flounder.

Actually, I think they have done exactly that. When they took over the House in 2010 they said they would focus on jobs "like a laser". Since then they have introduced ZERO jobs bills, and stymied attempts to bring any to the floor. Meanwhile they have introduced LOTS of bills on abortion, guns, family relationships, and religion (among other non-jobs topics).

Their principles and agenda are crystal clear, IMO.

You're wrong about the "Keynesian nonsense". Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there. As it did in the US between 1929 and 1932 (IIRC). It sounds like they are looking to try stimulus spending instead to staunch the bleeding. As we did in 2008, albeit not very well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Actually, I think they have done exactly that. When they took over the House in 2010 they said they would focus on jobs "like a laser". Since then they have introduced ZERO jobs bills, and stymied attempts to bring any to the floor.
--------------------------------------------------------
Er, i'm pretty sure it was Obama that said he would focus on jobs "like a laser". Then he rahmed a job killing healthcare bill thru congress virtually unread and played alot of golf. I also believe the republicans passed many jobs bills that were tabled by Harry Reid in the senate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"When they took over the House in 2010 they said they would focus on jobs "like a laser". Since then they have introduced ZERO jobs bills, and stymied attempts to bring any to the floor. "


You don't 'create' jobs by federal porkulus.

you create jobs by having lower tax rates and a more stable tax environment for private business to create and add jobs.


obama has done more to block energy jobs than any president in history.

In spite of him, over a million new energy jobs have been created.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, Boehner has actually been very consistent in saying that. He just doesn't do it. I tend to grant him some benefit of the doubt and say it's because the TP won't allow it, but maybe he's really just blowing smoke too.

The PPACA is not a job-killing bill. A nice little Faux News sound-bite, but not based on reality.

And, no, the House didn't pass a single jobs bill. They say they did, but economists have said that none actually were. It's almost a game with them labeling practically everything a "jobs bill" (e.g. requiring American-made steel in public water systems was a "jobs bill"...yeah, right...I believe this is one of the tabled bills). They probably regarded their 30+ attempts to repeal the PPACA as "jobs bills" too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You don't 'create' jobs by federal porkulus.

you create jobs by having lower tax rates and a more stable tax environment for private business to create and add jobs.


Don't forget stable and non-overbearing (preferably even reasonably sensible) regulation.

And reliable, consistent enforcement of contracts, such as making sure that the people first in line to get paid in bankruptcy get paid first.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You don't 'create' jobs by federal porkulus.

you create jobs by having lower tax rates and a more stable tax environment for private business to create and add jobs.


Don't forget stable and non-overbearing (preferably even reasonably sensible) regulation.

And reliable, consistent enforcement of contracts, such as making sure that the people first in line to get paid in bankruptcy get paid first.
--------------------------------------------------------
And don't forget a smooth, even, backswing and playing the ball off your front foot when trying to get loft on your short irons.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there.

That's because the government turned its citizens into weak, dependent, snivling runts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Er, i'm pretty sure it was Obama that said he would focus on jobs "like a laser".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzqlH60sSCI

Owebama is incompetent or, as Bill Clinton astutely observed, "an amateur."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there.

That's because the government turned its citizens into weak, dependent, snivling runts.
-----------------------------------------------------
.....that, and they haven't cut any spending.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The PPACA is not a job-killing bill.

That's right...the PPACA created 16,000 more government jobs to catch citizens who try to circumvent the penalty imposed by the PPACA. Good job, Owebama! Citizens! You vill submit!

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jul/10/tom...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The figure is more like 1,300.

The Treasury Department on Feb. 14 released the IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 that shows the agency is seeking 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That includes 291 IRS agents, most of them (193) to "ensure accurate delivery of tax credits." For more information, read our Ask FactCheck, "IRS and the Health Care Law, Part II."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
obama has done more to block energy jobs than any president in history.

In spite of him, over a million new energy jobs have been created.
_______________________________________

What this points out is the futility of the feds targeting job creation and success in specific sectors

The one success story, and it is the one that the Feds actively worked AGAINST. Now the Feds working against it did not help to make it successful, but the feds working FOR other industries did not make THEM successful

To any libs that are here, and who somewhere deep down has some sense that has not been killed by your ideology, realize that taking money from the free market and assigning it to things you want simply does not help.

If people want those things money will flow to the industry in question. If you stop money from flowing to the industry(and the more you give someone else, the less that CAN flow to an industry by popular decision) the more you likely stymie success and fund failure

A nation can not overcome spending its' money on failures and hlding it from successes. Let the market rather than the government decide.

This is not complicated stuff. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, why work s hard when the results are serial failure ?

Or put more simply, open your eyes you dummies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You're wrong about the "Keynesian nonsense". Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there. As it did in the US between 1929 and 1932 (IIRC). It sounds like they are looking to try stimulus spending instead to staunch the bleeding. As we did in 2008, albeit not very well.

How about we deal with facts? The United States, Europe, and Japan are all engaging in massive deficit spending, which is supposed to be stimulative according to Keynesian mythology.

Furthermore, spending was increased *massively* from 1929 to 1932, and we ran deficits, which should have been stimulative.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about we deal with facts? The United States, Europe, and Japan are all engaging in massive deficit spending, which is supposed to be stimulative according to Keynesian mythology.


Some folks are declaring austerity to be "dead", but is europe even really trying it? I thought all they did was lower the rate of growth. IIRC you had a great link for their spending trajectory...could you post it again?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How about we deal with facts? The United States, Europe, and Japan are all engaging in massive deficit spending, which is supposed to be stimulative according to Keynesian mythology.

Some folks are declaring austerity to be "dead", but is europe even really trying it? I thought all they did was lower the rate of growth. IIRC you had a great link for their spending trajectory...could you post it again?


Was it this one?

http://boards.fool.com/austerity-in-europe-30064219.aspx
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
How about we deal with facts? The United States, Europe, and Japan are all engaging in massive deficit spending, which is supposed to be stimulative according to Keynesian mythology.____________________

Further, we have been for decades, we should be looking at a prosperity of massive proportion.

We would have been in one for a long time before the banking crisis and would have long recovered from a banking crisis

The Bush wars everyone rails about? Would have been stimulative.

How did Greece get into trouble? By being frugal and cutting budgets so that now they have to go Keynesian stimulus?

As long as you ignore reality, saying the problems are the budget cuts actually does not sound totally absurd.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bingo! That's the one. Thanks for pulling that together; for once it would be nice if we actually tried austerity before declaring it dead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Furthermore, spending was increased *massively* from 1929 to 1932,...

Uh, table 1 disagrees with your assertion. Spending increased modestly, as it had before. The "massive" increases started in 1932 (and receipts dropped through the floor).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Furthermore, spending was increased *massively* from 1929 to 1932,...

Uh, table 1 disagrees with your assertion. Spending increased modestly, as it had before. The "massive" increases started in 1932 (and receipts dropped through the floor).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals


Dude, seriously?

From 1929 to 1932, spending increased 49% during a period of *massive* deflation.

The funny thing is that spending increased only 37.6% in the subsequent 3 years from 1932 to 1935, a period of inflation. So spending increased at a *far* greater rate under Hoover than under FDR.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there.

Who actually CUT spending?

("Cut" is defined as "reduce, as compared to last year". "Increase, but by less than our pie-in-the-sky request" is not the same.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Europe is only now just realizing that cutting spending has only made things worse over there.

Who actually CUT spending?
_______________________________
It is important to remember, In European politics they realize many things that simply are not so

That is the primary reason Obama has little choice but to emulate them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
MadCap,

I think you're wasting your time. There are none so blind as those that will not see. To be sure, the Government serves several very important roles, but micromanaging the economy is not one of them. To believe that the Government is a better allocator of resources than the people it purports to serve requires a belief system that is not responsive to rational thought. There doesn't seem to be a rational response from the left to the very plain fact that the Government must remove money from the economy (by taxing, printing or borrowing) in order to spend it.
Print the post Back To Top