It's a difficult issue. It's a big political win in anchoring the economy of the USA to 12 other countries that are not China. We are already starting to think of ourselves as more of a Pacific Rim country than a NATO country. This will further an inevitable trend.
On the other hand, it means more job losses for the USA. Take a look at our trade deficit with South Korea. It doubled in the 3 years since we signed free trade with them. Now multiply that by 12.
Politicians advocating for confiscation of guns would be elected in places like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. I can also see a Liberal President packing the Supreme Court with enough justices to void the 2nd Amendment without actually repealing it. Indeed, that is exactly what some on this board have advocated.
Also, in most cases the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) registers owners of restricted firearms like automatic weapons fairly in accordance with the law. However, during Clinton's administration, the BATF assassinated a few survivalist gun owners. Michigan's own ultra-Liberal Congressman John Dingell said this:
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, saying in 1981 of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, "If I were to select a jackbooted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick A.T.F."
This "war against guns" is exactly what provokes the paranoid right to own as many as possible. I don't think guns will be confiscated because there are enough people like John Dingell, who are ultraliberals in all issues except gun rights. Dingell always got an "A+" rating from the National Rifle Association, despite his being a pinko on all other issues.
Ben, I have to give Springer some backup on this one. Having lived in Chicago, a very "anti-gun" city, there's no question that there are some (not all, but some) Liberals who would confiscate guns if the law allowed it. Chicago police confiscated the legal gun collection of one of my neighbors. It took a lawsuit to get the guns returned, and then in very bad condition after the police intentionally damaged them.
Chicago and other anti-gun cities would have confiscated their citizens guns by now if the Supreme Court had not invalidated the laws. Chicago's law banning handguns in the city was voided by the Supreme Court in the 2010.
“In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois’ 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership
Now Chicago's law banning ban gun shops in the city has been overturned. This is an article from the NEW YORK TIMES:
CHICAGO — Mayor Rahm Emanuel outlined a plan on Wednesday to make Chicago’s gun laws, already some of the strictest in the country, even tougher.
The plan is the latest attempt by the mayor to restrict firearms in the city, a response to intractable gang-related violence. In January, a federal judge ruled that an outright ban on gun shops in Chicago was unconstitutional, citing “the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.” The judge gave the Emanuel administration six months to come up with a new plan.
So, yeah, some Liberals WOULD ban guns if the Supreme Court did not vigorously defend the 2nd Amendment
-- I just want to make it (gun ownership) unpopular.
Heinlein, gun ownership will only ever become unpopular in upscale gated communities. These would be places full of urban professionals who don't hunt and who pay neighborhood association fees sufficient to hire their own private security patrols.
Everybody else who doesn't live in a secured area encounters riff raff from time to time. My summer small-town community in NW Michigan is a low-crime area. However, riff raff has started to infiltrate into the area, and drug selling along with the burglaries that accompany it have started to show up.
Last time I was in our police station there was an elderly couple about 85 years old in line in front of me. They were there to pick up the permit required to back heat in town. The old lady asks the police officer, "How many guns does this permit allow me to carry?"
The police officer answers with a big grin, "As many as you want, Ma'am!"
Although the police officer didn't actually come out and say it, you could tell by his enthusiasm that he meant to tell the lady: "Get your guns, Granny, and then go out and plug somebody who needs it."
btw. Not knocking on P.R's and Mexicans. I was in Chicago the week before last and it seems to be a lot happier place than it was 30 years ago. Thirty years ago it was a city of dour, winter-hardened lawyers and accountants who barked at everybody who got in their way. Nowadays the Mexcians, P.R.'s and other Latinos, who account for about 25% of the population these days, walk around with happy faces. Their attitude seems to have affected the Chicago-born Blacks and Whites who are way friendlier these days than they used to be. Chicago is a happy city now, despite people getting shot by the bad apples in certain neighborhoods.
I lived in downtown Chicago for years. One time I walking in front of a popular club downtown during Salsa Night. There were about a thousand Puerto Ricans and Mexicans waiting in line to get in. A car pulled up near the entrance to let somebody off. It backfired loudly when it stopped. The P.R.s and Mexicans all "hit the deck" simultaneously. They imagined they were being fired on by rival gang members and were conditioned to seek cover.
Not long after that a few people WERE gunned down in the line at another club not far away. I didn't see that one but read about it in the paper the next day. It seems that the line didn't break after the shooting. The surviving P.R.'s and Mexicans stepped over the dead bodies and kept their places in line.
Around that time the City of Chicago invited some kids from Northern Ireland who had been traumatized by the sectarian war between the Protestants and Catholics. The City of Chicago invited those kids to live in the Irish community called Bridgeport. The Northern Irish kids stampeded back home a week later. They were getting shot at more by the gangs in Chicago than by the Irish and Protestant militias fighting each other back home.
For years it was illegal to even own a handgun in Chicago, but plenty of people ignored the law. Chicago is safer now, mainly because the city demolished some of the gang-infested high rises adjacent to downtown and replaced them with low density housing that is easier to patrol. That proved effective in reducing crime in the city, but gun control didn't.
Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun
And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son
Josh Thompson "Way out here"
Did the illegal alien with seven felony convictions who plugged that girl on the San Francisco pier pass HIS background check?
Trump vs. Sanders would give us a real choice. I was thinking it might be Trump vs. Biden. If, when things settle out after the March primaries, it turns out to be Bush vs. Clinton, then we've refuted the theory that "familiarity breeds contempt." If Ms. Clinton somehow gets elected, I'll find business that takes me overseas again. I was fortunate to have been out of the country during much of the 1990's when Clinton's scandals polluted the news every day.
For years you've been talking about "getting the money out of politics." Presumably this means putting up a firewall between the bankers and elected officials so that politicians will not be indebted to bankers and do their bidding once elected.
Donald Trump is the only person of independent means who doesn't need to rely on banking / Wall Street / hedge fund money. So, if you want to see any chance at all of "getting the money out of politics," then electing Trump might be the only way it's ever going to happen.
Any billionaire who despises hedge funds and isn't afraid to go on record saying it in public is going to get a fair hearing from me.
You'd get the same poll if you asked a Republican constituency to rate Ms. Clinton, Joe Biden, or Obama.
btw. I started reading THE BIG SHORT. It's really well written. Having been close to the financial industry I thought I had a good handle on how corrupt it is, but I'm sure after I finish reading this book I'll find out that it's even a lot worse than I had thought!
Thanks, that pulled it up immediately. I must say you're insane if you think that "Billo destroyed Trump." They acted like pals.
The interview was of O'Reilly asking a series of questions and the asking Trump, "Is that fair." Trump replied in every case, "That's a fair question."
The one tough question was when O'Reilly played the clip of Trump calling Rubio a "clown." O'Reilly asked if that sounded presidential. Trump said, "No, it doesn't. But let me explain why I said it. It's because Rubio attacked me. You know, I'm a counter-puncher."
Trump explained that as people come to know him they'll understand him better. O'Reilly laughed good naturedly. "OK, so you're going to grow on people." Trump laughed too.
At the end of the interview Trump and O'Reilly were laughing together. O'Reilly said, "Was that a fair interview?"
Trump replies, "Yes, you're a very fair interviewer."
O'Reilly ended by treating Trump like an old college buddy. I've never seen O'Reilly treat anybody that cordially.
If you're talking about Bill O'Reilly, no I didn't see it, or even know it took place yesterday. I tried to google it just now. The only Trump / O'Reilly interview that googled was one from June 16.
I did see Trump's interview with CNBC's political analyst John Harwood just now. To me, Trump seemed credible and suave. He replied calmly and even with humor. Harwood was joking along with him by the time the interview finished. It seems that Trump has learned a thing or two about how to conduct his interviews.
A curious group of people have been dissing on Trump:
1. The Democrat party's establishment, presumably because they think Trump would be a formidable candidate.
2. The Republican party's leadership, because Trump knocked off their stud duck Jeb Bush.
3. The banking establishment, because Trump thinks that big money-center bankers (Goldman Sachs & Co) are parasites who make their money fleecing the public with toxic mortgage derivatives, then run crying to government for bailouts when the house of cards comes crashing down.
4. The corporate 1%. Although Trump is promising a lower corporate tax rate of 15%, he's also promising to sweep away the tax deductions and loopholes that allow some of the largest corporations like GE to pay no taxes. And he's promising to impose immediate taxation on their overseas income instead of allowing them to launder it indefinitely through tax avoidance shelters in the Caymen Islands.
5. The tax accountants and tax lawyers, because their value will be diminished.
6. The economists who work for big government and big corporations because Trump will overturn the crony capital bailiwick of their employers and clients who pay them.
If all those groups are against Trump, he can't be all bad.
People also move from Florida to N.H. I think I told the story of my neighbor who moved from Florida to New Hampshire when he got married. He's the biggest R'neck in the county, but he loved it up there. Somehow he found the only bar-be-que restaurant in N.H.and became the head chef. He's back in Florida now, but only because he inherited the family homestead when his parents kicked the bucket.
The economic factor that keeps people in Michigan is higher income. The starting wage is around $11.00 an hour here, about 50% higher than Florida or Texas. A young person starting out in life can do better here in economic terms. Even so, many young people leave the state as soon as they finish high school or college. The young people who leave are seeking a better weather environment. A surprising number of young people return to Michigan. They do not like the excessive heat in Florida summer or the low pay of working in tourist businesses.
So, it's mostly true that young people do better in the Blue States. Then when they've accumulated a significant net worth later in life, they move to the Sunbelt.
It's interesting is that except for Florida and Texas and Nevada, all the "Red" states on this list have taxes as high as any Blue State. For example, South Carolina's state income tax maxes out at 7%, which is higher than Connecticut or Illinois.
You do save a lot of money in Florida, Texas, and Nevada, but not much in the other "red" states. I think what really makes the difference is a lower cost of living. You can live the same standard of living in Atlanta on $75K that would cost you $150K in Connecticut or New Jersey. Obviously, you are going to pay a lot more taxes in $150K than $75K, but the extra taxes do not improve your standard of living any.
Moving to a tax-free state like Florida, Texas, or Nevada does make a huge difference in lowering your taxes both directly and indirectly. Most upper-income Michiganders move to Florida as soon as they are able to wind down their businesses in Michigan. My neighbors in Florida in Winter are the same neighbors I have in Michigan in Summer. The Michiganders all seem to congregate in Central Florida. Those who maintain a Florida residence of 183 days are free and clear of Michigan taxes, at least according to their CPA's.
Thanks, I will read it when I finished this book.
btw. hope whatever issues you mentioned you needed to take time away to work through a few weeks ago were resolved satisfactorily.
Heinlein, I'm reading the recently published OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY by John Kay, one of England's central bankers. He's worked in private sector financing since the days when Lloyds of London was the world's largest insurer. He's entirely familiar with our financial system as well.
His observations of Federal Reserve policy talk about the same points you bring up. The book is written in a witty and even humorous style, so it makes for a light reading of a dry subject.
Kay is about as conservative establishment as a person can be, but his opinion boils down to the blunt point that private sector banking is essentially a criminal activity aided and abetted in its fraud by the World's government-operated banks, including our Federal Reserve.
Is Trump REALLY promising to cut taxes? He's promising to lower the rates, but also to remove debt as a tax-shelter from corporate balance sheets. Allowing debt to be expensed from an income statement is one of the primary reasons we get in so much trouble with over-leveraged investments.
I don't know that Trump would entirely succeed in removing perverse deductions and loopholes, but he could probably succeed in capping them to reasonable amounts, such as a maximum of 10% of income. If he could do that, he'd get the same amount of revenue even with lower rates.
What we really want to avoid is a situation where Exon/Mobile pays 40% income taxes, Apple pays 25%, and GE pays 0%. A consistent rate for all of them is better. Dittos for individual filers. The taxpayer who loads himself up with mortgage debt to buy a primary residence and vacation home should not pay less taxes than a more prudent person who buys a modest home that they can own free and clear.