Yes, there are gun deaths in every state, but if you look at the actual statistics, it's clear that ths states with some regulations to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and the success of those regulations is pretty clear. Look it up. The numbers are available. Looking for the actual numbers is always better than making assumptions, especially ones that prove to be false.
Gun deaths, per 100,000 in states with few, if any, gun regulations:
South Carolina: 14.0
Gun deaths in states with some gun regulations, per 100,000:
New Jersey: 5.2
New York: 5.1
The evidence clearly shows that those states with some gun regulations do have gun death rates that 1/2 to 1/3 what they are in the states with no regulations to keep guns out fo the hands of those who can or won't use them safely. Some gun regulations can and do save lives.
No president can be impeached for either political disagreements, or for incompetence. We can all form our own opinions about whether that is a good thing or not, but according to our current Constitution impeachment is not a possibility.
Really? no one's tried to take away my water bottle. But it's a full quart, so maybe it doesn't count?
Of course you are not supposed to swallow it unquestionably. Ask some questions and find the answers, yourself!!
- Which states receive the most back for each dollar paid in federal taxes?
- Which states receive the highest percentage of their state revenue form federal sources?
- Which states have the most people employed by the federal government?
- Which states receive the greatest amount in federal food stamp and welfare funding?
- Which states most reliably vote for Republican candidates?
You should never accept statements like this without question. Check it out. Get some answers for these questions! The information is available out there. It just takes a little work to find it.
I understand that some math is required here, but both the number of people on welfare, and the number of people not on welfare have both increased because the population of the country is increasing by about 10% a decade.
That's much like that other new record that you forgot to mention - more American not on welfare than every before - Great Job Berry!
Sadly, that's today's Republicans' message and MO and it has been for the past few years.
"Yup, we'll do something, sometime. No need to get off our collective #$%$ now. Wait till next year. We're being paid good money to do nothing. No need to change that."
Political groups like Americans for Prosperity never mention the Republican party in their ads, and, in fact, they can't by law. The Democrats have similar groups, that must follow the same laws. It may even be the case that most political advertising is now done by these 3rd party advocates (advocates for who or what??). In any case the have a lot of the money now to fund the ads that we see. And, at least in theory, the real candidates have no control over what these 3rd parties say about them. Freedom of speech, the first amendment, and all that! Maybe you don't remember those supreme court decisions?
Reagan won because when he ran, there were no RIOs. But now, today's Republicans are split between rich business owners, and relatively poor tea partiers who can't stand each other, and who won't support each other's candidates. The Republican party is a completely different world today.
The current minimum wage is $7.25/hour. An increase of 100% would put it at $14.50. Who's asking to raise the minimum wage to more than $14.50/hour immediately? Certainly not the president. And Seattle's proposed $15 minimum wage will be raised gradually to that number over the next 6 years.
Where (and when) did you get this information? Stafford Co. NH had a disagreement with the state over funding for a home for the elderly poor about 5 years ago. That has long since been resolved.
You may want to think a little more about what you are suggesting, Springer. The growth in use of food stamps is with people who are already working, many with 2 or 3 jobs. There are only so many hours in a day. Are you really suggesting that they just quit their Walmart jobs and go on workfare, getting still more food stamps, and welfare? I thought you wanted to actually fix the problem and help peoepl get real jobs with living wages that don't require additional food stamps?
Springer, you are right. Food Stamp use h increased over the past few years, although more in some states than others. For example, in Texas, participation has increased from 10% to 16% between 2008 and 2012. In Mississippi, it even worse, having increased form 15% to 22%. Likewise in Tennessee, where it went from 14# to 20%. Even in states where unemployment is now very low, the food stamp participation rate has increased. For example, in North Dakota the rate has increased form 7% to 8% between 2008 and 2012.
Certainly in some states, including Mississippi and Tennessee, the unemployment rate is still quite high, but why would the food stamp participation continues to increase? Any ideas?
Here's the big reason for the increase. Many of our biggest employers, including Walmart are paying their employees so little, that they can't pay their rent and also put food on the table. Walmart even pays people to help employees in each store to sign up for SNAP (food stamps). You and I, as tax payers are subsidizing Walmart and other companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year to provide food and food stamps for their employees. As soon as the pay of those Walmart and other employees increases a little, the food stamp participation rate would plummet. What should we do to make that happen, and to make companies like Wlamart show some responsibility for their employees, and toward taxpayers who are now subsidizing them?
How do you suggest we fix this, Springer?
I agree WH! And I think we have only sen a small part of the changes that will continue to happen over the next couple of decades, as w introduce more remote processing and management, along with lots of robots and drones of various sorts. Consider these possibilities which are not too far in our future:
- Farmers using drones ot view hundreds of acres of fields to find problems, and then selectively applying fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides, as needed, with people in India, the Philippines, or Peru running the drones.
- Drones or robots washing windows on skyscrapers, again with people far away operating them.
- Buses and taxis that operate with no drivers, and with an operator managing dozens of them from Russia.
- Fire department replaced by drones and robots. Much safer and always ready!
- Robots caring for the elderly and children, too.
- Deliveries made by drivelers drones and trucks.
- Teachers in India teaching your children mathematics and science.
- Again, not using robotics, but large companies already speed design work, by having design teams in europe, Asia, and America, working together 24 hours a day.
- Already, 90% of factory workers have been replaced by robots, as well as shifting work overseas. It's not going to get any better.
- Drones and robots are already being used as cameramen that can put cameras where they could never be put before.
Jobs at very part of the income scale are being replaced by lower paid workers, with the technologies of the internet, software, robots, and drones. We must figure out what we want to do with our time, as we are not going to need to use much of our time working. I hope that we don't chose bad options like war or drugs, but if we don't what will we do? And if we are not working how will we produce good incomes?
The rule that Yahoo tries to enforce are listed under the terms of service ("terms" link at the bottom of the page) Things that most often get a post deleted now is any link to anywhere else on the web. Sometimes specific threatening or vulgar language can be deleted, as well. But links are probably what causes most posts to be deleted. They seem to enforce copyright violations, through explicit copying, rather than using links, to the real source. But, posts that copy too much can be deleted, as well.
What an excellent example of how some may misinterpret and misrepresent date for their own political purposes, as they tell a story that is exactly the opposite of what the real date actually shows.
Between 2008 and 2011 illegal immigrants that Obama sent home grew to 2 or 3 times the amount that his predecessor sent back. And Obama could not send back more children (or their parents) at the border, because they were not arriving at the border.
Perhaps you don't remember, but between 2008 and 2011, we had a sever recession. There were no jobs here. The total number of immigrants, both adults and children, dropped precipitously. No one was showing up at the ports of entry to deport or turn back. Net immigration dropped to about zero. Many illegals were returning on their own, and at that same time, Obama was looking for and finding hundreds of thousands of illegals who were already here to deport, deporting more than any president before him had deported.
Lang, if Americans didn't like buying stuff made in China, they would stop buying anything at Walmart. I expect that the owners of the company would notice after a while... The only state that I know to have worked hard to keep Walmart out is Vermont. And they have recently lost that battle, as I think 4 Walmart stores have been recently built there now.
But, Lang, we also must remember that china is a big country. China's population of about 1.4 billion is nearly twice population of both the US and Europe combined. That 100 million additional manufacturing jobs is just 7% of china's population. Back in 1950, we employed nearly 40% of the nation in manufacturing. Now the number is closer to 20% here.
Although China does export some things to the US and Europe, most of what they make stays at home for their 1.4 billion people. The biggest problem for us is not moving jobs overseas, but instead simply getting rid of jobs that are no longer needed.
Jobs are now moving out of China to India, or even back to the US. In a while jobs will be moving out of India to Africa. Yes there is some cheap labor that we need to compete with. The problem is that we really need to be focusing on creating more high paying jobs.
Hi Lang (and WH!).
I agree. The middle class workforce is being hollowed out. Some jobs are going overseas, but most are just disappearing. Consider the constructions of cars.
Fifty years ago high payed engineers would design a new car, and teams of well paid draftsmen would draw hundreds of pages of mechanical drawings of every part of the car, from fenders, to engine blocks, crank shafts, seat mounts, and bumpers. These drawing would be brought down to the factory floor where well paid machinists would make the parts and put them together to make a car.
Now it's done very differently. The car is designed as a collection of digital information. Parts are analyzed and verified using computer analysis. When the digital design is accepted, it can then be networked to the robots and machine tools on the factory floor to cut, punch, and drill the parts and assemble them. A few high paid design and software engineers are needed, but no draftsmen. Down on the factory floor, the number of workers is perhaps 1/10 what it once was. There are many fewer middle managers, and only a collection of people who oversee the operation of a lot of numerical control, and robotics devices which do the production and assembly work. Again, a big reduction in middle class, middle paying jobs, fewer engineers, no draftsmen, machinists, fewer managers and no old style assembly workers.
In the past work (and pay) was more equally divided between everyone. We are going to need to figure out how to do the same thing in today's world, where we can provide for all our needs, with much less work. Otherwise, the people who do get the jobs, and the high pay will have no one to sell what they make to.
Yes, we have moved some jobs overseas where labor is cheaper, but that's just a temporary blip.. (In fact a number of US companies are now moving work back to the US from China, as pay increases there, to the US, where we still have a higher level of automation, and need fewer workers)
Finally, a beautiful day here. The rain yesterday is finally over, and and it's bright and sunny. - time for a picnic!
Also, I've assumed nothing. It's just the way the math works out. As i showed earlier, even 1 billion cars would produce less water vapor in a day than Lake Michigan does - and worldwide, we don't even have 1 billion cars now. It's also physically impossible to double the water vapor in the air in most places. On a good day in places like Michigan, the atmospheric humidity is about 60%. On a bad day (when it's raining) the humidity is 100%. Doubling the humidity in places like Michigan is physically impossible, especially given the amount of water that such cars would produce.
Currently, gas burning cars produce exhaust that is composed of nitrogen (71%), CO2 (14%), and water vapor (12%), plus trace components that are mostly pollutants. Note that the water vapor produced by today's cars is completely insignificant and never much considered, while it's the CO2 that is causing problems now. Producing 10 times as much water vapor with our cars in the future would continue to be insignificant, but all rational analyses, so far.