Saturday, January 15, 2011


Nothing like fear of death to clarify one's thinking.

On gun control, Peter King, hard-core Republican Congressman and teabagger favorite, sticks his neck out.

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

I'm sure he'll get flack for it. But here's my question: if it's okay for the people's elected representatives, why not for the people who elected them? Are congressional lives specialer than mine? Teabaggers, after all, are for the common people, right, not those Washington elites. So why not expand the law to include you and me? (Well, yeah, they rejected the idea of giving us the health care privileges of Congress, so I guess they're okay with letting the rest of us get shot. It's a health thing...)

It's pretty simple, really. No need to outlaw guns. Just go with Peter King and make it illegal to bring a gun within 1000 feet of anyone, not just government officials. In fact, although I don't know the strict definition of "officials," it might go without specifying, given the number of people around the country on government payrolls. And we can give everyone really long tape measures.

If it's good for them, it's good for us. I'm liking it. A thousand feet. Brilliant -- and from a Republican.


Anonymous said...

Your right Sid, King's an Idiot.
And don't take that out of context, I mean Peter King, not the one who's birthday we get off on Monday, and it didn't become a holiday until the Reagan administration, so put that in your liberal bong and smoke it.
1000 feets not even that far, my Mom's taken down Deer at twice that range..
thats pretty good at night...
And I'm not even a registered Repubiclan, we dont register by party in Jaw-Jaw, we don't register hardly anythang unless its mentioned in the Constitution, like Automobiles or Nail Salons.
and I've voted for LOTS of Democrats in my life lets see...
Zell Miller, Al Sharpton.
And technically, Ronald Reagan started as a Democrat.
Oh yeah, David Duke.
Don't blame me, he was in YOUR Party, just like George Wallace/Richard Daily/Strom Thurmond/Robert KKK Bird/ and oh yeah,
"Theophillus Eugene "Bull" Connor"
How many Repubiclans have you voted for???
and Scope Jackson doesn't count.

Frank "Whats this funny white cold stuff on my lawn" Drackman

Anonymous said...

Dr. Sid,
Everyone knows that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

P.s. Since the debate on this topic should be minimal (just like congress having a different govt healthcare plan than the general population; everyone knows it's wrong.), could I mention some topics that you may deem comment or even blog worthy?

1. Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher giving that cult that protests at funerals a one hour radio slot to debate a christian commentator in exchange for the cult agreeing to NOT picket the funerals.


How do you feel about taxation and "rich" vs wealthy?

3. It's been shown that conservative politicians donate significantly more to charity than liberal ones (income adjusted, of course). How do you feel about liberal politicians asking the public to give more to the common good, but being less giving with their personal incomes?

Sid Schwab said...

First, the ACA did provide choices in health care like Congress has. It's teabaggers that want to repeal it.

1) It's nice, I guess. The better idea was people attending the funeral had made large angel wings to wear, standing in front of the Westboro crowd, had they been there, so as to block them from being seen. Gallager gave them a much larger audience, and for much longer, than if they'd been at the funeral.

2) I think I've said many times what I think about it: the Bush tax cuts went too far, were devastating to the budget despite the usual claims that they wouldn't be, and on the highest bracket they ought to have made the modest return to where they were before Bush. How people name their bills is pretty laughable on both sides: "repeal job-killing health care reform," for example, when most studies have shown minimal if any of that.

3) The tax rates D congressfolk proposed would have affected pretty much all of them. The question is not who gives what to charity: it's what tax rates are reasonable for government to function.

If the study to which you refer was based on actual review of tax returns, I guess we could accept the premise, assuming it was also a random selection of participants, including statistically significant numbers of them. If neither, I'd say it's worthless. If both, it's interesting and irrelevant. Unless you really believe (a) that a nation ought to count on -- expect -- charitable donations to cover its social responsibilities and (b) there's reason to think that enough people would consistently donate enough money to make it work.

Anonymous said...

"Whats this funny white cold stuff on my lawn" Drackman"

*Teabaggers standing around, or Global Warming!!!


*Snow often, in the lost city of Atlanta?

Sam Spade said...

Precordial Thump:

I thought maybe the Thomas Sowell article would be interesting because he's said insightful things about race and IQ.

It was so bad that I feel annoyed for having read it. Right off the bat it states: "The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up." I don't know if you were following the news ten years ago, but I distinctly remember the Bush tax cuts billed as being explicitly temporary. So, yes, if a temporary tax cut expires, taxes go up, but that's hardly the most perspicuous description. The rich irony here is that the premise of the article is that political rhetoric clouds understanding.

"It also takes a lot of brass to talk about taxing 'millionaires and billionaires' when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. Why is so much deception necessary, if your case is strong?"

That's asinine. You'd have to search high and low for liberals who want to raise taxes exclusively on the middle and lower classes. Liberals are far more likely to support progressive taxation, and Conservatives are much more likely to support the lower tax on dividends and cap gains and suchlike.

I could go on, but what's the point.

Anonymous said...

If the Bush Tax rates are so Eeee-Ville and D-structive, how come your still payin em???
You can send the IRS more if you want, I do it all the time, don't know if it confuses the audit Algorhythm, but it cant hurt..
Or figure out how much more you would have paid if AlGore won, and send it to the Charity of your choice...
and to show how sure I am your big fat Hippo-crites, show me a reciept and I'll send TWICE as much to the same charity, as long as its not AlKaida or NAMBLA...

Frank "not holding my breath" Drackman

Anonymous said...

you missed dr sowells point in his very short and simple article. You are talking about what liberals WANT to tax (everyone with >200k income), while dr sowell is writing about what actually happens (wealthy use tax shelters to avoid paying their fair share).

So, which politicians are presenting legislation to make sure the rich pay their fair share (without further taxing the upper middle class)?

OHN said...

Lets just be sure that when guns are sold to the the schizophrenic/bipolar/etc, that they are also sold a tape measure. Can't be too careful.

Sid Schwab said...

Are you aware of how often you repeat yourself, Frankie, or is it a drug effect?

Sorry. I guess, under the circumstances, it's a question impossible to answer.

Sid Schwab said...

OHN, well, there might be a few bugs to work out. I'm sure Peter King has it covered.

PT: kidding, right? Good one!

Raise rate by 3% -- tax shelters. Keep them where they are -- none. I guess you still believe that lowering rates raises revenue, too. Check your beta-amyloid levels, like Ronnie should have.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Sid,
Raising tax rates has less effect on wealthy who have access to tax shelters than those in the upper middle class. Its not the rates, its the disproportionate effect on nonwealthy "rich". That was Mr. Sowells, and my point. But, like you say, water over a ducks back.

By the way, the goal of lower taxes isnt to directly raise more revenue immediately, although it can happen based on some variables. Its goal is to increase investing=incr production=increased efficiency=more abundance=increased standard of living for all. Eventually, less govt svcs are needed so less revenue is required. Stated simply, its better for everyone to have more ppl in productive jobs, rather than funding thousands of minimally productive govt employees. Which direction are we going as of late again?

By the way, that randomly selected statistically significant study about the stinginess of democrats in the executive branch was pretty funny. Its not like we are studying eplerenone in NYHA class II heart failure here (hint: it works, but keep the D5W, insulin, and calcium handy). Its more like you are saying there is no evidence showing that jumping from a plane without a chute may cause harm b/c noone has done a case controlled double blind study.

Frank reminds you everyday, but you keep forgetting. YOU are the one with the tangled neurons. Maybe thats why Frankie repeats himself so much?

The dull, thoughtless, & forgetful PT

Sid Schwab said...

dtfPT: I know the theory of trickle-down economics. It just so happens it's never worked. But you are free to rinse and repeat.

As to jumping out of airplanes: poor analogy. But of course I did give you a lengthy and thoughtful answer to every one of your questions, and, specifically, addressed the issue based on whether the data were accurate, or not.

Not to mention that, if you are going to quote data, it's not unreasonable for me to address the veracity and repeatability thereof. If you think that's asking too much, well, there are always airplanes.

Anonymous said...

1. You, or politicians, actually haven't addressed how the wealthy can be stripped of tax shelters and required to pay their fair share of taxes. (im sure you've heard how w. buffett pays less in taxes, proportionately, than his secretary)

2. Landmark study disproves parachute safety!!!


Sid Schwab said...

Sure they have: flat tax. Advocated, of course, by the very wealthy Mr Forbes.

And Mr Buffett was one of the strongest supporters of raising taxes on the highest bracket. Show you the difference between rich Rs and rich Ds, I guess.

My chairman in training pointed out there'd never be a prospective study of appendectomy for appendicitis. He was sort of wrong, actually, but the point is shared with your amusing article and is a good one.

Which is not to say that challenging such squishy "studies" as the charity one is out of bounds.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, is your real name "Pot"?
So stop callin me "Kettle".
OK, I know that flew over your Neurofibilary Plaque Filled Pointy Head, but...........
YOUR one to talk about repeating stuff, you say the T-Word more than NWA used to say the N-Word.
I don't even say the N-Word anymore, at least not when any N-words are around...
And at least MY blog has some variety, just this week I posted some pics from my 8th Grade Yearbook...
and I'll bet theres more African Americans in my Basketball team Photo than you've talked to this Century...
Oh yeah, those Bush Tax Rates?
Obama still payin em too..
Well thats a little different than my usual slap at your Hypocrisy...


Sid Schwab said...

So, Frankie, by posting a comment in which every single statement is one you've made, oh, a hundred times, you feel you've refuted my statement that you repeat yourself?

So, Frankie, by posting a comment in which every single statement is one you've made, oh, a hundred times, you feel you've refuted my statement that you repeat yourself?

So, Frankie, by posting a comment in which every single statement is one you've made, oh, a hundred times, you feel you've refuted my statement that you repeat yourself?

Anonymous said...

"So, Frankie, by posting a comment in which every single statement is one you've made, oh, a hundred times"

That's how the "Big Lie" works Sid!!


Popular posts