Originally Posted by Burton13
1 step at a time.....1 step at a time
It'll be the same definition as it was while the same ban was in place 94-04. It wasn't a suprise, Obama said he was going to put the ban back in place during his campaign ("As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons") During those ten years, everyone got to keep their rifles, shotguns, pistols etc. Its a ban on selling/buying them. Never said he was a champion of them, but he isn't going to pry all of someones guns from their cold dead hands like it was made out to be.
"there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make" And this was one of them. Guns aren't on the top of his list and won't be anytime soon with the economy, healthcare, Iraq, education etc in need of attention.
1 step at a time.....1 step at a time
30 days and already the amount of debt that was ran up the last 8 years has increased by 25%.
"Call me crazy, but I want to buy the Dallas Cowboys end zone and have the star right at the foot of my bed. That way when I score, I can spike the ball right on the star!" -Woody Paige, Around the Horn 10.9.08
Well did you think he had it in his back pocket?
I was under the impression he could twinkle his nose, snap his fingers, or command it to appear.Well did you think he had it in his back pocket?
Dang, fooled again!
No but the whole campain was based on paying for the new spending via taxing the 250K plus crowd but now that the numbers are rolling in there is no way that bumping up taxes on that group alone will pay for this spending and in true polatision form he has pushed most of the tough cuts and paybacks till after his 2nd term (if he is reelected) would be over.Well did you think he had it in his back pocket?
It could be that Obama like Clinton would/will be a much better Presadent with a Republacan controled Congress
There are other factors that will help pay for these things, not just the tax hikes on the rich. For things like healthcare, he will be raising the cost of some senior citizens prescriptions that are making 170k+ a year and so forth.
I don't think that would help one bit, they are unwilling to agree with the dems on one single issue. They had their turn and didn't do anything.
Exactly the less Goverment can get done the less that they can screwup the country
I am interested in how the Healthcare thing will play out and which side the NARP comes down on.
On a side note when SS starts useing more money than it takes in a few years (10 I think) Things will get ALOT worse
[QUOTE=Burton13;1771087]There are other factors that will help pay for these things, not just the tax hikes on the rich. For things like healthcare, he will be raising the cost of some senior citizens prescriptions that are making 170k+ a year and so forth. QUOTE]
By simple argument, your second sentence negates any substantive argument of the first.
He can tax the rich at 100% and never come close to paying off his bailout - even in several generations. And whatever happened to the tired old story of the dems from years past - that big companies were in the hands of the republicans? Now the biggies seem to be the only ones the dems want to bail out. I realize he is merely reaching out to the numb-brained who voted for him - the government-dependent, the unions, ad nauseum infinitum.
No it didn't, obviously you missed the last few words when you analyzed it. It said "and so forth", meaning there are more ways of getting the money to pay for these things instead of taxing the rich part which most conservatives seem to focus on...that was an example, there are more.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks