And then, there's this:
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/gun-violence-virtually-a-thing-of-the-past-in-japan/

Rebecca,
Great article. Of course, the Japanese have a culture that places a huge importance on personal honor, unlike our culture, which actually rewards those with a lack of honor.

A homicide by definition is criminal activity. I've never proposed banning guns, although if you did I suppose it would be much easier to tell who the criminals were.

You said "Firearms kill 30,000 of us each year, give or take. Two-thirds of those deaths are suicides and 600 are ruled accidents."
You said deaths, not homicides.
Yes, it would be easy to tell who the criminals are. They would be the ones killing defenseless people.

In the CDC data I provided 11,015 deaths in 2010 were classified as Homicide by discharge of firearms.

Nuance Brian- Your article said "Firearms kill 30,000 of us each year, give or take. Two-thirds of those deaths are suicides and 600 are ruled accidents." Yes, you provided a link to the information but your above statement is misleading and sensationalistic. You might have said "CDC data lists 11,015 deaths in 2010 that were classified as Homicide by discharge of firearms, which are the numbers pertinent to this discussion.
Instead you used the 30,000 total number as a scare tactic, very hypocritical.

I'm afraid you've misquoted me Jerome. I never said I'd rather be shot by anyone. I've also never said people shouldn't own guns or defend themselves. And if you ever find anything I say that's not factual I'll be more than happy to post a correction. I'm human and as such capable of errors like anyone else.

Brian, You said "Holmes was completely protected by ballistic gear, the theater was dark and filled with teargas. It's extremely unlikely that another theater goer could have shot him dead in his tracks."
I proved to you that ballistic gear does not completely protect you and, as proof, posted the FBI statistics. Of the 56 police officers killed in 2010, 38 were wearing ballistic gear.
I am still awaiting your "more than happy" correction.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed

Actually Mike ballistic gear can be quite effective in most situations. My son is a LEO and he wouldn't leave home without his ballistic vest which is all most LEOs wear (by the way, it's up to him to purchase his own protection). In this case the shooter was outfitted head to toe including a ballistic helmet and throat protection which is usually a LEOs most vulnerable area. No correction needed here.

He still could have been shot dead by another theater goer. Ballistic gear does not make you bullet proof. Your son and any other LEO will tell you that. In fact 7 of the 38 LEOs wearing ballistic gear killed in 2010 were shot in the torso, through their ballistic gear. Ballistic gear helps but by no means makes one invincible. You are dead wrong on this.

Thanks George

Trish, firearms are a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. Handled properly and safely, by a responsible and trained person, they are not dangerous to you or your family, only to those that wish to harm you. A firearm will respond to your personal emergency faster than any 911 call you can make. Like the old saying " I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." I applaud you and others that make the decision to take a firearm safety class, a concealed carry class, or any other firearm training class, because you are not content to wait and let others protect you, should the need arrise. Not saying there is anything wrong with being anti-gun. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. I disagree with other people making decisions for me that affect my safety and the safety of my family.

Well said Mike. Trish- If you get a gun, please take MA's advice and make a point of taking a gun safety course. Your local Sheriff's department should offer one and they are the guys you want to learn from, they actually encourage law abiding citizens to arm themselves.
Once you do that it would be good if you could practice with it once a month, this includes taking it apart (easy on most hand guns) and cleaning it properly when you are done. I recommend the Smith and Wesson 642. It has a hammerless design so it won't get snagged in a purse, is light weight, small framed, simple, not too expensive and ultra reliable. It only has five shots, but those five shots are guaranteed (no jamming).
Part of the Sheriff's training course should include target identification, situational awareness and minor education.
Good people need guns too. You go girl.

Mike, didn't you learn anything about using initials to refer to somebody? It's rude, remember? You have to call him MikeA, or MAs, or something. C'mon, pay attention....

:P

Where is GD anyway? :-)

Mike H, excellent recommendation on the S&W 642...great for personal/ home protection, surprisingly accurate considering it only has a 1-3/4 inch barrel and basically foolproof to operate. Smith and Wesson, the original 'point and click' interface.

TOWG- Shhhhhhhh....he's sleeping.

In a nutshell. There are thousands of gun shows in America each year. Prior to an easing of regulations in 1986 only private individuals (collectors, aficionados, etc.) were allowed to participate in these venues. Private individuals are not required to perform background checks when selling firearms as dealers who hold a Federal Firearms License are.

The inclusion of federally licensed dealers in these events has greatly increased their popularity and many more guns are now being sold by private individuals with no background checks. Although licensed dealers at these shows are still required to perform these checks, some have been found to skirt regulations in order to compete with private individuals. Many feel the solution is to require background checks for all firearms sold at gun shows. Let me know if I missed something.

That was indeed a well written article and I was completely engaged. Too bad about the end though. A perfectly wonderful bit of anecdotal writing ruined by political manipulation. Brian, you really are an excellent writer. Do you have any non-political works that I might enjoy?

Wow Mike. Thanks. To answer your question, no. I always try to ruin my writing by inserting nauseating liberal talking points...hahaha.

Pity that.

Yeah, the liberal slant made it more like a msm article instead of a two sided story. I found myself having a diffcult time with finishing. maybe newsweek or time is where you need to be writing.

I believe that 22 incidents have happened this year.This was the worst.

So Brian owes his life or existence to his Gun toting grandfather .

I'm glad to see him finally speaking out. Maybe this will lead to some concrete policy proposals.

What kind of plan do you have in mind?

Karsten Torch,
I have a plan in mind but they are running for president not me.Shouldn't they come up with a plan? Should I run for president?We can begin with this fact:
Our gun laws are designed to prevent felons, the mentally ill, and drug abusers from purchasing guns. But the background check system is broken, and loopholes in the law allows criminals to buy guns with no questions asked.This needs to be a national plan.

Criminals don't have to buy guns.

Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of time…after the Chinese invented gunpowder around the year 850 AD, they did it with increased efficiency…
For the last three and half yrs liberals have been telling us that Bush screwed up the economy so bad that even the Great Obama couldn’t fix it, and when gas prices were over $4/ gallon last year those same liberals told us that the President couldn’t control gas prices. Yet now you expect the president to come up with a plan to change thousands of years of human history?

Seems like the new liberal talking point is ‘48,000 people will be murdered by guns during the next president’s term’. I’ve heard that several times the last few days…I have another number for you. During the next president’s term 48,000,000 (yes, that’s 48 million with an M) babies will be murdered in the womb. One of them may have the plan to end gun violence, but we’ll never know. But if a presidential candidate were to suggest there should be a plan to stop that, he would be accused of waging a ‘war on women’. What’s your plan George?

You know. Truth. That thing that GaDe doesn't think she needs to go research. Or doesn't apply to her. Or something.....

Unless you actually believe it's murder. Then it gets a little more complicated....

What exactly is an 'unfunded war'? I've seen that moronic claim made several times lately on one of Brian's threads (to his credit, none of the utterances came from him...seems to say more about his followers...).
I seem to recall the congress voting to authorize billions to pay for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You might remember one of those votes too- that non-partisan sage John Kerry voted for one of them before he voted against it...You remember John Kerry dont you? He was in Vietnam!
I suggest to you that those wars were funded the same way Obama's failed stimulus plan was funded, and the same way we'll pay for Obamacare- with borrowed Chinese dollars.
Now if you want to discuss the impropriety of borrowing that much money for those purposes, given our current economic situation, we might find some agreement. But given that you resorted to calling a presidential candidate schoolyard names, and you completely failed to address how any president can change thousands of years of human behavior, I suspect that conversation is way over your head.

GW- Huh? What alter reality do you live in?

That would be the one with no FOX, just facts.

Jimmy,
The term "Weather Vane Romney "actually came from a Republican candidate for president J.Huntsman.

Mike ,
If you had one you would keep it and gun shops would not be able to sell them them in the future.In other words, you have to start somewhere to bring sanity back to this issue.

George,
What would happen to the gun shop's inventories?
Thanks,
Mike

In what world is this the beginning of bringing sanity back to this issue? Please, use one example that would show me where banning such things would help in any way.

Mike,
Knowing our Congress they would debate it for sometime and give the gun stores time to work off the inventory.They could return some of the inventory to the manufacturer.However,I don't think any of our political leadership has the courage to approach this "hot issue" and nothing will be done.When it happens again we will go through another orgy of breast beating and lamentations.In the meantimes the NRA will send out another scare letter and collect more money for Wayne's million dollar salary.

We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years between 1994 and 2004. It couldn't be that complicated.

And it did no good...

Geprge- OK, what you are saying is that we should ban Assault Rifles. People who already own them can keep theirs. Gun stores would be given time to sell off their inventory or return their stock to the manufacturer. So, I have a few more questions.
Would people who already own them be allowed to sell them later?
What would be the rules be as far as reporting these sales?
Would the government inventory private citizen's guns annually to make sure where these guns are and enforce sales rules?
Would people who inherited them be allowed to keep them?
If people inherited them, would they be allowed to sell them?
It doesn't seem very fair that there would be all these people who have assault rifles but no one else can have them.
Should I go ahead and buy an assault rifle now, before there is some sort of ban?
Thank you in advance for your time.

GW- So, there have been wars where we paid a "war tax" in order to fund them?

That's the problem. We didn't spend enough. Because the government has EVER been able to get us out of any slump by spending. Sure. I guess nobody ever paid attention to Japan and their 'Lost Decade?'

Please tell me how taking from your right hand to spend with your left makes anybody more money.

GW- The idea that the government can effectively administer any more projects, much less one as massive as the "Affordable Health Care Act" seems absurd to me. Historically, the larger the government project, the more waste. The biggest issue with me is that this "act" will allow government to grow even more. In my humble opinion, the only way to decrease political corruption is to reduce the power/size of the Federal Government.

Mike,
The "Affordable Health care Act" is basically operating by insurance exchanges set up in each state.The insurance company offers their own plan which you are free to select from the best that fits your needs.This is the same plan that Mitt Romney set up in Mass. and seems to be working.Also this basic plan operates in the Neatherlands and Switzerland.Moreover, this was the Republican health plan put forth by Bob Dole the Republican nominee for president and the conservative think tank the Heritage Institute.I would have preferred a single payers system like Canada or at a minimum a public option to choose from.

GW- I read Romney's comments and found none of them derogatory. He was just calling things the way he saw them and was quite accurate in his assessments.
I believe the left (most media) is just using this in an attempt to distract the public from Obama's rude comments regarding successful Americans. Intelligent people are not going to fall for it, but nice try.

Actually it was the Brits who were mercilessly mocking Romney. Follow #RomneyShambles on Twitter to join the fun. My favorite tweet so far is from Danielle Blake @DCPlod: "Mitt Romney retroactively cancels visit to London. #RomneyShambles" https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23RomneyShambles

Mike,
The Brits found his remarks offensive that's enough.

If that's true, it's too bad the Brits are not a bit more thick skinned. All I read was a voice of experience expressing real concerns, not criticisms. I think the American media is taking the few negative British reports and running with them to make this seem like a much bigger issue than what it really was, and, of course, causing an orgy among Obama's supporters.
Will anyone argue with any of Romney's assessments of London's preperations?

Yes, but unfortunately, criminals really don't care about your stupid laws. I don't understand why people don't get this part of it. You can't legislate human "impulses".

GW- In the far left's cotton candy world with marshmallow clouds, you would be right. The only way to lessen the dark impulses of human behavior is through stricter personal accountability. The bigger the government, the more laws, the more the complication, the harder it is for the common man, such as myself, to keep track of who is doing what. The backbone of America is too busy working their butts off and taking care of their families to devote the necessarily time required to keep the beast in check. That puts us in a very vulnerable position and we won't have it. Large government diminishes the responsibilities of lawmakers and increases the dark impulses of their behavior.

GW- I submit to you, that more laws is exactly what we do not need. What we need is fewer lawyers. Shakespeare, all those years ago, was right, and he still is. Lawyers and politicians have had the same reputation for a long time. Mark Twain echoed these ideas over 100 years ago and they still ring true.

"Both the original post and many of the responses to it are a farce."

Does that include yours?

Dave, you hit the nail on the head, dead on. His reason for his 180 turn from his upbringing? "Things were different then". While I applaud Brian's coming out of the closet (does take guts), I believe things are no different than ever and, if anything, they are worse, thanks to liberal views on punishing criminals and breeding lazy dead-beats.
We could start by requiring all kids to serve in our country's military for their first two years out of High School.
Jeff, no, Dave's post is reality.

Dave, I can always count on your unbiased criticism. However I have never stated, or insinuated, that law abiding citizens shouldn't own firearms. This is why it is difficult to have a national conversation about gun control. Once someone broaches the subject they are immediately denigrated by your ilk as some kind of un-American, far left, extremist who is intent on "dismantling our freedoms" and destroying the 2nd Amendment. You should go to work for the NRA, I have a feeling you would fit right in.

Jeff-- That's for you to decide. The farce I referred to was Brian's attempt to justify his opinion by couching his argument in a history of gun ownership. To me, it's reminiscent of a self-proclaimed drug addict who never actually used drugs pointing to his his former "addiction" to give his opinions increased credibility.Apparently, you think my comment is in the same arena as Brian's post. That's certainly your option.
Brian- you have railed against firearms and 2nd Amendment rights on a number of occasions and have altered your statements to fit the conversation of the moment. Some of your quotes from the past-
"I am however not comfortable with any Tom, Dick, or Harry walking around with a Carry Concealed permit."
I don't want my loved ones ending up like Trayvon Martin because some idiot wants to play Dirty Harry."

"the shooter wasn't some crazy loner, he was a fairly typical (if slightly obsessed) gun owner who thought carrying a loaded weapon would somehow make himself safer."
" I do however think it is stupid for us a a society to allow almost any fool to carry a concealed weapon."
I could go on, and probably will in the future. You paint virtually everyone with a concealed license as an idiot and while you never state that you're against 2nd Amendment rights, you are eager to see them restricted, probably by the same governmental entity that supplied Mexican drug cartels with weapons.

So what's your point Dave? In my original post I expressed the same thought...please leave your guns at home. I think I've been pretty consistent on that. You're right about one thing, I am a freedom loving supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. What has been supplying the drug cartels with weapons are the ridiculously lax gun laws in Arizona.

Somebody needs to develop a 'sarcasm' font.....

Here's an idea..... http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/

Or...we could use a substitute quotation mark....>yeah, that's a great idea<

>Dave, I can always count on your unbiased criticism.<

Too subtle? Maybe, >>Dave, I can always count on your unbiased criticism.<<

And for some reason us on the right just keep trying.....

What innuendo would that be Dave?

LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

RE: "The Supreme Court has settled the issue."

I wonder if Mr. Ivey, a consistent Republican voter, holds the same position on abortion rights. No reason to debate it because no minds will be changed...and oh by the way, "the Supreme Court has settled the issue?"

With respect, the Roberts' Court has overturned law that was previously settled for decades, if not centuries (new restrictions on the commerce clause, creating a previously nonexistent individual right to bear arms, increasing corporate spending in political campaigns,...). This Supreme Court has demonstrated that no issue is ever settled.

Tim, I am part of "the Anti-Gun Crowd", as you refer to us. I disagree with your pro-gun position. What we do agree on is your frustration with going back and forth on the issue of guns. It seems to me that this back and forth about guns has been a recurring topic on Patch for about a month now, in one form or another. The arguments are becoming almost predictable and redundant.

One more thing. I have often wondered if the government came today to take away our guns and tomorrow the government came to take away our Bibles, what would we put up the bigger fight for. I predict most of us would put up a bigger fight for our guns. I say that because it seems we touch our guns far more than we touch our Bibles. The last Barna Survey I saw reported the average Christian in America spends 3-1/2 minutes A WEEK reading their Bible. I wonder how much time many in the pro-gun crowd spends with their precious firearm. Just wondering.

Great observation David.

Have a great weekend Tim. Be careful out there..."don't shoot your eye out"

Tim,
The term "Tax and Spend Liberal" went out after Bush cleaned out the surplus left by President Clinton and then went on a spending spree with two wars and taxcuts for the wealthy.You have got to keep up or you will be left behind.

There is a difference, though, Cindy. If you ban spoons, it would really probably have no effect on the levels of fatness. If you ban guns, as has been shown repeatedly, crime will go up and you will need your gun more than ever. Why those that are so anti-gun can't get that into their heads, I have no idea.

I know it must sound good to say it but the data simply doesn't back that up Karsten.

RE: "If you ban guns, as has been shown repeatedly, crime will go up and you will need your gun more than ever."

I'm not sure how Karsten arrived at this conclusion. It is true that overall crime rates in the U.S. have steadily fallen...with the exception of gun homicide rates. They've held steady?

"The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England." In addition, "non-fatal gun injuries have increased by about 20 percent in the last decade."

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

What your stats don't tell Chris, is that in other foreign countries, the cause of death by a gun might be low BUT other causes of death bring their death totals per capita higher than ours.

Studies do show that in some of the worst cities to be murdered by a gun, those cities have the strictest gun laws.

The reality is that the United State's obesity problem is FAR worse than any gun issues we have. Next time you are out in public, look around you folks. It's far more tragic than the episode in Colorado or anything else we have going. Americans are indeed eating themselves to death at a FAR faster rate than any guns could ever hope to achieve.

I didn't see these comments until now, so let me address them.

Any city that has instituted a gun ban or tightened down on gun laws has seen an increase in crime. I'd provide statistics, again, but at this point would be repetitive. They're out there all over the place. Assault weapon ban? Actually saw an increase in crimes committed with them, and a corresponding decrease when the ban was lifted. It's funny how that works.

England saw homicides with firearms take a massive rise after they banned guns. They're still awfully high considering that they're on an island and nobody's supposed to have them. But NGW's right - their death rate is quite high. People find all kinds of ways to kill other people, and those ways become all kinds of effective when you take away the main source of self defense. Just sayin.....

Dave
Here is a solution.We will induct all gun owners into a militia so we can regulate their guns.

I think you may be on to something there George.

I've carried Hydras for years, but just recently switched to the Zombie loads - basically the Critical Defense loads with a green tip. Ballistics tests seem to be really good.

And that is the gist of the problem, you talk about guns and ammo the way some folks talk about golf clubs. The difference is golf clubs don't kill 30,000 Americans each year.

Niether do guns. It's people that do. I have yet to see a gun or bullet jump up on its own and plug somebody in their ass all by themselves.....

"except in the case of Rape." Why wouldn't that be murder, too, by your definition? The fetus doesn't know it's the result of a crime. Won't it become a person, too? That life isn't just as valuable as one conceived through consensual sex? Not a "precious baby"? Just wondering about that exception. If I were anti-abortion, I would probably be against all abortions. If you say life begins at conception, how can you make that distinction? To me, that's no less playing God than what's claimed against pro-choice.

I'm curious Tim, if a fetus is a person, what happens to their soul when they die? Do you believe God damns them to hell?

If you apply the logic from your 1:43 PM comment, Tim, then there's no point in arguing about abortion since the Supreme Court has "settled the issue." With regard to the Second Amendment, you wrote, "the Supreme Law of the Land is on my side and the Anti's cannot do anything about it."

Does such logic only apply to Supreme Court decisions that you agree with? Or do you mind if I make my case without you dismissing my argument as "settled?"

Holy cow! GD actually has a point. It's a Christmas miracle!

Tim,
Then don't have an abortion and don't foist your beliefs off on everyone else.

You guys really need to come up with a new line, that one is getting pretty stale.

Drunk/careless/stupid people with vehicles can kill, and evil/crazy/careless/stupid people with guns can kill. One elementary difference is that vehicles are manufactured for transportation, not to be killing machines. Firearms are manufactured to kill. People operate both. Except for Brian's mention of suicides there's nothing here the same players haven't already said in reply to Brian's piece on the Sunday Liberal. They must be having a lot of fun, or there's way too much anger. On suicides, too bad some use guns for that. They're leaving a horrible scene for a loved one or anyone to see and have to clean up. Maybe the NRA can do some good for a change by setting up a victims' fund instead of paying all the money they do to politicans to put through their agenda. But that won't happen because it could be likened to an admission of culpability in the acceptance of violence and loss being a small price to pay for the freedom to carry and kill. The American way.

Exactly. The American Way. And the safer way, let's not forget that....

Sorry, hadn't seen mention of giving an inanimate object the ability to actually do anything by itself yet, other than your supposition that they could. Guess I should read responses closer....

GD- Karsten has a point, as usual. Isn't it more tragic that cars kill so many more people and they are not even designed to do that? Imagine how many cars could kill people if we actually designed them that way. Talk about solving the Atlanta traffic problem. Think of all the innocent Prius' that would be killed. Just home in on the Obama bumper sticker and WHAMO!
The good news, guns do exactly what they were designed to do, guns are much more awesome than cars. And, any car is cooler than a Prius.
Brian- We have to keep using that line in the hopes that someday a liberal will actually hear it. If only we could get it printed in the Washington Post.

In response to this post and the one above it...

Huh? What are you talking about?

That's actually an ignorant statement. We have laws to provide consequences for actions. To set rules about what's allright and what's not. For you to say "why have laws against..." as justification for gun laws means that you're just not paying attention. At all. We still have people murdering people and driving above posted speed limit although there are laws against them.

@No.GA, I think the idiots think they won't get caught; some are desperate for money; some are just dumb - stupid criminals. Without laws and punishment, there would definitely be more crime. Evil people may not be criminal until the evil act is committed. Holmes only had a traffic violation; things went very wrong in his mind. With assault firearms, you get a multiple-victim crime when those evil, crazy people execute their careful plans or just snap. Lax gun laws make that too easy and too frequent. Better awareness and access to mental health care could also help. Anti-bullying education from pre-school on could help, too. "Every case"? Really? Another generalization.

No, not a generalization. I didn't say that there shouldn't be laws, it's just that the people that are going to break them (and I'm not talking about minor things, I'm talking about murder) and going to break them regardless.

And something else you need to remember, there isn't a solution to every problem, and throwing money at it is not going to make it go away. These acts of violence have happened since Cain and Able and it's not going to stop now.

NGW has another good point. How about more harsh and more swift punishment for criminals? I'm talking about swift capital punishment for three time losers. Get that one past the ACLU. Better access to mental health care? How about more responsibility put on parents to do a better job instead? Our society's problems lie within the family, parents and individuals should be held more accountable, not guns.

Horseyman, you're immature. You need a long time out. When you and your buddy KarTor can't think of anything else to say, you resort to name calling and insults.

Typical partisan pot calling the kettle black.

I'd love an example of me resorting to name calling and insults....

"How much longer are y'all gonna beat this dead horse......over and over...same old arguments.......and the bottom line is you're getting nowhere!"

Tim, I agree with you again.

Until someone finally hauls "it" up to the newly opened horse processing plant in Missouri.

Dave,
We were starting to make this change towards a a reduction in ther national debt and then the Supreme court put Bush in office.How much better we would have been with an Al Gore administration.Also Romney's proposed economic plan increases the national debt by 500 billion.

George-- Answer the question. This isn't about Gore or Bush or any other irrelevant issue you care to bring up. You claimed that Clinton left a surplus, If he did, please explain how the national debt increased during his administration, as it has every year since 1957.

Dave,
Just google Paul Krugman.He is an economist and a Noble prize winner and author.

Sorry Dave, I thought we had resolved this. My mistake. It has to do with the crazy way we account for Social Security. Clinton indeed had several budget surpluses, meaning the government spent less than it received in revenues during those years. Part of that excess was in Social Security taxes (at the time we were receiving much more in SS taxes than we were paying out in benefits). By statute any excess SS premiums are invested in US Treasury Bonds which increases the national debt. In fact when you hear that US debt is now $15 trillion, about a third of that is money we our ourselves (Social Security Trust Fund, government pensions, etc.). Only about a third of our debt is owned by foreign countries.

George- apparently, you're incapable of answering the simple question I posed. But you have proven yourself extremely capable of following the liberal playbook of discussion tactics-- SIN- sidestep the issue, ignore the facts and name call. You've mastered two out of those three tactics very well.
So the question remains, if Clinton left a budget surplus, why did the national debt increase? Perhaps you don't realize that a budget is a plan, and the national debt is an indication of the accuracy of that plan. Regardless of the budget, if actual revenues exceed expenditures, overall debt decreases. If expenditures exceed revenues overall debt increases. It's really that simple-- provided you're willing to deal with facts as opposed to wishes.
Brian- you're correct, the picture during Clinton's terms in office are muddied by intragovernmental borrowing. But again, national debt increased during that time, which means that government expenditure exceeded revenues.

No Dave, it means we invested surpluses in government debt instruments.

No, Brian, it means expenditures exceeded revenues. The fact that we borrowed from the Social Security fund doesn't alter that. The fact is, we had to borrow to meet our financial obligations. And at some point, the money we borrowed has to be paid back to fund Social Security payments. If you borrowed money from you child's college fund to pay your bills, you would still be in debt, albeit to yourself. And you certainly have the ability to not repay the loan. But if you didn't, and you were faithful to your commitment to pay for a college education, you would have to borrow money from another source at a later date. So by borrowing from yourself, all you did was delay recognition of the fact that you over-spent your budget. converter a paper debt a real debt.

I'm sorry Dave but you're wrong. We did not borrow to meet our obligations during Clinton's last 4 budget years (1998 - 2001) because we we ran surpluses, and we certainly didn't borrow from Social Security.

Again, those surpluses, by statute, were invested in treasury bonds (which are debt instruments). That increased our total debt. How hard is that to understand?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

@Dave Emanuel
I do not use the Liberal book on discussion I use the Wilson book instead:Here are a few tips...
1.Deny It
2.Blame it on someone else
3.Change the Subject
4.Plead Ignorance
These are far more effective, and you can see how many of these principles have been incorporated into all of these posts including your own.

Brian-
So what you're telling me is that by statute, we have to increase the national debt, and that there's no way to reduce it. If there's surplus revenue, it can't be used to pay off debt, it has to be invested in bonds, which increases the national debt. On the other hand. if expenses exceed revenues, we have to borrow money to make up the difference, which also increases the national debt.
George--I can understand that you go by your own playbook. It looks like you've mastered all the points, but you've outdone yourself on point 4.

You know, I've never looked at it that way but you are absolutely correct. Under current statute we will always have federal debt, trillions of dollars of it, as long as we have the Social Security trust fund and government pensions. Unless at some point we would choose to amend the statute and start investing in other countries' bonds. Intra-government holdings are now roughly $4.5 trillion.

We can however reduce our debt to a certain stable level by creating surpluses other than SS and pension contributions through a combination of spending cuts and taxation.

"Only a foolish people would trust every quote they read on the internet, for there are those among us who would make stuff up to bolster their flimsy arguments." - Abraham Lincoln

"Only a foolish people would trust every quote they read on the internet, for there are those among us who would make stuff up to bolster their flimsy arguments." - Brain Crawford

There, I fixed that for you.
Now you're putting words in Abraham Lincoln's mouth. Stooping pretty low there Brian.

Wow Steve, I'm surprised you caught that.

All those people are long gone from this earth. They didn't live in a world of mass assault weaponry. Only gun people are talking about their hand guns and rifles being taken away. It's a distraction, and they just like talking about guns probably. They know that's not going to happen. There's no reason that private citizens should have assault guns except that they want them.

All of those quote are either highly edited as to change their meaning, taken out of context, or outright spurious except perhaps the Richard Henry Lee quote. The Sam Adams quote is mostly accurate although Adam's punctuation emphasizing "peaceful citizens" is absent.

The gist is this, when you start throwing around spurious founding father quotes it makes you seem extremely gullible and lessens the strength of your argument.

Michael,
Here is another thought from Jefferson:
Re: Second Amendment...see what Jefferson had to say: From letter 1816 to Samuel Kercheval: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. they ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it....But I also know that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."The "new discoveries" would be weapons of that kill large groups of people quickly like assault rifles.Maybe the constitution needs to be modified.

Great quote George. I spent most of the morning reading Jefferson and those sentiments run deep through his writings. It's important to remember that the "right to bear arms", however one interprets it, is itself an amendment to the Constitution.

Michael,
That's my point ,maybe we need another amendment.

Oh, Horseyman, pretty words in an attempt to mask your insults. You do know that you're partisan, don't you? From Websters, partisan: someone who actively supports a party, cause or principal. Have a good Sunday, a day to pray for souls, minds to meet and hearts to soften.

Actually, I claim neither party. Yes, I lean toward conservative, but I am far from partisan, party-wise. Partisan toward the Constitution? Perhaps.
I like you, you remind me of my older sister. She's jaded and cynical too, but underneath it all she is very sweet.

I've always wanted a small nuclear device and 2 kilos of black tar heroin, that okay with you Jerome?

Now, Jerome, you know those items you list are not comparable to firearms meant to take out many people rapid fire. Creature comforts and luxury items vs assault weaponry? Really? Your bucket has many holes.

Ummmmm. . . Don't have a wife, Timmy :D. I'm a straight female, dear.
I am so flattered that you think I'm worthy of your explanations and debate, though.
I don't live life expecting and looking for trouble.

She could sit down and talk to them, work out an equitable arrangement. It's worked so well with the Iranians, why wouldn't it work with local home invaders?

There are other ways to protect yourself against home invasion than owning a gun. Security systems, stun guns, pepper spray come to mind. Or, you could decide to stop living in fear and just take your chances like you do every time you get behind the wheel of a car. There are no reliable statistics on home invasions but in my 50+ years none of my friends or family have been the victim of one.

Someone broke into my house one night while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. Fortunately, they made so much noise it woke us up. The unmistakable sound of a pump shotgun as I came down the stairs scared them away. The Security system did its job. The alarm sounded and the alarm company phoned me to make sure everything was OK. I guess if I hadn't scared them off, I could have handed the phone to one of them and let the Security manage the conversation.

Brian, you're such a dork. Who wants to get close enough to a criminal to use a stun gun or pepper spray. I'm just glad I didn't have to shoot the guys; getting blood stains out of carpet is so difficult.

A dork? I'll have to add that to my list. Had someone call me an @ss hat yesterday. That was a new one as well.

I was being nice. As a child, my parents taught me not to make fun of liberals.

I can't believe a man would suggest pepper spray to another man regarding home security. David- Dork doesn't cover it well enough.

Okay, maybe pepper spray wasn't my brightest idea ever. My point was that the likelihood of dying in a home invasion is much less than dying in a car accident.

Besides, I generally support the idea of owning a firearm to protect your homestead. It really depends on the circumstance and the individual.

Tim Tim Timmy, I believe it was you who previously ignored a question I had for you. Were you "incapable of answering"? You don't get to say what I have to answer. I'm guessing if I'm a victim or a statistic in your worst case scenario 'cause I don't have a bedside gun, I won't be blaming Dubya or anybody else.

No Tim, I simply choose not to live in fear.

After two tours in Viet Nam, I fear nothing. That doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid and pepper spray someone crazy enough or hyped on drugs enough to break into my house or confront me on the street and demand my belongings. We met VC and NVA so stoned they didn't realize they were shot...until the third bullet.

Simmer down Rambo, I've already admitted that was a foolish statement.

By the way, doesn't it bother you that Romney avoided the draft so he could bicycle through France spreading The Book Of Mormon? Reminds me of a song... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcpXpQx9aLM

Hell no! Viet Nam was such a hell hole, I'm happy for the people that didn't have to go, whatever their reason. But I'm really sad for the men who died in vain while liberal weenies protested against them.

So the hippies were weenies for trying to end a war you despised, but you defend those who avoided fighting while they actively supported the war? Man that's f'd up.

Target rich environment? You mean people?

David, Just a quick note to you. Thank you for serving in Vietnam. Everyone I know that remembers or has learned how things went down over there appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers made. I have taught my children about this and will make sure their children know as well. The few idiots who don't value what you have to say you on this forum (or anywhere else) do not speak for the majority of Americans. Most of us believe you have earned our respect the hard way, and we listen intently. Thanks again for your patriotism.

If I didn't value what folks have to say I wouldn't engage them in conversation, I'd simply call them names and try to shut them down. Sound familiar? I appreciate all vets and their service to our country including David, but I hated that lousy war. I was 17 when Vietnam ended but both of my brothers served and I had friends who died there. I also knew guys who protested and fled to Canada as conscientious objectors. I applaud all who lived their convictions. But yeah, the fact that Romney chose to hide behind his religion while actively supporting the war bothers me a great deal.

Yes Brian. I meant communists.

BTW, Mike - you still have that GP your dad had back in the day? I was telling somebody about that not long ago.....

Romney's deferments were 4-D, Minister of Religion. You call bicycling through France being a Minister? I don't believe he ever attended seminary. And you think Romney understands who you are? There has not been a day in Mitt Romney's life that he's ever had to worry about how he was going to be able to afford health care or send his kids to college. I wouldn't begrudge that if the man had any sense of how lucky he is our what his responsibilities to society are as a wealthy man, but I haven't seen a whiff of that.

Brian, you, judging Romney, or anyone else, is absurd.

Why, because I have a different point of view? I guess our measuring sticks are a bit different then. Your only qualification seems to be "not Obama".

The draft board granted deferments. 4-D was their designation, not Romney's qualifications based on seminary attendance.

The Constitution says this about Presidential requirements. "Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States". Stay with me here. If the above is a requirement for a President born outside of the US, I think it only fair for it to be a requirement for someone born here as well. Just MHO.
Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to run as far as anyone knows and I have no problem with him running. Romney was born to American parents living in the Mormon colonies in Mexico. They fled back to the US when Romney was a child as a result of the Mexican Revolution. They struggled through the Depression just as many Americans did. The key for me is that both Romney's parents were proud US citizens and he was raised by both parents to have a deep seeded loyalty to our country. Romney's father became deeply ensconced in the US and became a very well thought of American. Perhaps not to you, but to anyone who admires strong work and moral ethics. My requirements for a man/woman to have both parents be US citizens is just my personal preference and only one of many measuring sticks I use to decide my vote. While Romney is not my first choice, he has now become my only choice.
I will admit, you are right again, I am a silly guy, more silly than you will ever know. And I vote.

GD- Newsflash- Romney parents are both Americans, as in US citizens. Romney's parents were in Mexico doing Mission work. Romney was not perfect as a lad but everyone evolves from the mistakes they make in their youth. (Obama did drugs and I don't hold that against him) No, I don't tell my loved ones how to vote. I don't have to, fortunately they all, with only one exception, make good choices on their own. The one "different" relative agrees with you. She was blessed with a genius IQ and zero common sense, I love her just as much as the others. She is welcome to do as she pleases and soon she will have to come live with me because none of her idealistic fantasies have ever come true. She still won't wear a bra, weighs over 200 pounds, has lost many of her teeth, hasn't taken care of herself and still, even near retirement age, has never been unemployable for more than a few months at a time. She thinks she needs Obama and that's OK. In the end, it will be her family that takes care of her, not Obama, not our government.

If you stay home and we get rid of Obooboo, that would help to stop the damage to this country. And it would keep me from moving to Costa Rica....a Central American country.

RE: "it would keep me from moving to Costa Rica"

Costa Rica has universal health care and government provided insurance. The irony is rich.

"And, Mikey, Mitt's only loyalty is to his religion and his money, then maybe his immediate family."
Pretty bold statement, very judgmental, which I am not allowed to be.
David- Thanks

OK, this is a public forum so any of your comments can be directed anywhere. I'll let Mike defend himself. Seems you aren't creating much offense though since we've all heard the "It's Bush's fault" so much its meaningless.

Recently had my house appraised. It's worth more now than when I bought it nine years ago. Guess I must have bought well, kept it up, and stayed away from the crack houses.

I already own a condo in CR, that's the reason I picked that country. And my off shore bank account there so I don't have to support the "entitled." But even if this wasn't the case, I'm betting heavily with anyone willing to put up the cash that we have seen the last of Obooboo come November. I used to call him the second worst president ever but he has earned a spot, passing Jimmy Carter to become the worst president.

BTW, thanks for calling me cute.

David... save me a spot on the porch! :-))

I believe this is a public conversation, last time I checked anyone can comment to anyone else's comment.

So now reading comprehension is a Republican issue? Wow.

Darn. I was sure you were calling me cute!
But I'm not so appreciative about you talking about my butt!

I'm not planning to sell my house but I appreciate your concern. I had the appraisal completed so I could challenge the exorbitant tax appraisal from the county. I bought it from a builder that was challenged to pay the interest on his loan so I got a good price. And I have made a few minor improvements and completed normal upkeep to maintain its value. And that makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
You're right, not all distressed properties are in crack house neighborhoods. Since I obtained my wealth, such as it is, through real property assets, I own many of those distressed properties. Unfortunately, too many of them are near drug houses, some within very upscale neighborhoods.

And just so you know, reading comprehension is not a Republican problem. Unfortunately, its a common problem in our country these days, brought on in part by liberals getting involved in our education system. Social promotions? Really?

First, my thanks to your family for their service. I was lucky enough to not get sprayed with AO. But I lost many good friends, some dying as I stood guard over their injured bodies.

Now, let's talk about selective memory. I point out the cause of the economic crash in this country which triggered a world collapse (When America catches cold, the world sneezes.) Bill Clinton with the assistance of Harry Reid and Barney Franks made it possible for every American to buy a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Too much debt, not enough income, and people that didn't care if they allowed their property to deteriorate because they were entitled and expected the government to bail them out. The bubble burst and the walls came crumbling down.

I agree that Bush didn't do everything right and I certainly didn't agree with many things he did. But the damage was done long before his time.

True that, Rebecca. It happens because one comment leads to another subject and another. I doubt any business would appreciate such a scene. These guys play rough. You think this is bad? lol Thought we were talking, sort of. But, it has turned into a Jerry Springer operated political merry-go-round.

You sound smart. Look up the Clinton/Reid/Frank stuff and you should come to the same conclusion. The laws were written then regardless of when the debacle came to fruition. Investment banks are there for one purpose...to grow faster than the rate of inflation. They use the laws as written. Bush could have done more to stop the bleeding but the cut was made prior to his election so the bleeding is not his fault. Not using a bigger band-aid was his fault but it was difficult to see the bubble until it burst. Hell, my success has been based on using these laws. I came from poor but used my intelligence and the system to make money. And I don't apologize for it. The system was there and I, along with most successful people used it. I still use it. YOu wouldn't believe some of the crap the laws allow and these laws were not written during the Bush era. Many of the loopholes date back to Lyndon Johnson.

The education system has been going downhill since 1967...easy to track it directly to this date. NCLB was crap but didn't cause the problem, just continued it. The Feds shouldn't be involved in a states right issue like education anyway.

Actually Bush did try to stem the flow, and was told emphatically there was no problem. 2002, as I remember it, he called the pending problem with the Fed and Fannie and Freddy, and was told all was just fine.

I well remember those days of taking people around looking at homes, back when I was a real estate agent. Customers who didn't have a pot to piss in, made $25,000 a year, and were pre-approved for $160,000 house. Or more. I had a couple of customers I just refused to help find a house. I know most of them did anyway, but I did have to be able to sleep at night. Customers who would be completely stretched for their home as it was, much less with any unexpected expenses. And the banks were OK with it.

Like David said, Bush did a lot of things that we Conservatives didn't agree with, but the collapse was moving forward long before Bush got involved in any of it.

Fortunately we don't have to rely on the faded memories of old folks like us Karsten, Here's a great clip of Dubya in 2002 urging Freddie and Fannie to throw caution to the wind and start cranking out those sub-prime mortgages. Down payments? We don't need no stinging down payments! Bush's grubby little hands were all over the housing debacle.

http://www.justmatic.com/Attorneys-Lawyers/qa-in-2002-why-did-bush-order-440-billion-in-subprime-loans-from-fannie-maefreddie-mac/

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/pr02-126.cfm

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015.html

You can abbreviate my name as suits you, within reason and respectfully, and I'll respond, as long as it isn't the two aforementioned initials used offensively. Why so lazy, though? Oh, that's right, can't get the word out . . . D e m o c r a t. It's not a matter of not being brave that I don't use my real name on Patch. It's about not being stupid and retaining whatever privacy this digital world affords. I may very well be famous for all you know. I cannot have my safety, or my family's, compromised. There are a lot of RWNJs and various others running around out there, especially around CFAs, and you know I don't tote a gun, maybe :D

Karsten, I don't know at which point you stopped the initial thing, but it stuck in my mind and in others', too, as its use spread to a few of them When I wrote that comment you didn't answer it then, but brought it up today. Are you bored? Re-reading old stuff? I think your use of sarcasm is not to engage anyone in an honest discussion, but to pull them into an argument. That's why I don't usually respond when you use it toward or about me. "Abased"? You're implying that I have elevated myself. I do try to rise above hateful discourse. Perhaps, in your mind, you've elevated me? If so, I'm flattered, but I think you overuse sarcasm. Direct, but respectful, words are so much more effective ;)

Can I just call you Ms. D? I actually like the ring of that.

Or, what about a first name. Like NGW is actually Steve, so many people reply to him using that name. That would actually make it far easier and far more respectful.

I will be honest - the use of your 'handle' does put my back up a bit, and my initial reaction is to keep on about the initials thing so that maybe you'll come clean, but honestly, interaction with you is just so much fun that I'd rather just go ahead and address you as-is. It's not your fault, I know a lot of people aren't brave enough to put their real names out there, and again, if you notice, I pretty much ignore them completely. But people are stupid, and somebody may take offense to something you say and choose to confront you about it. I agree - nobody needs that. So fine, stick with it, and I'll try not to fall into using your initials again....

There actually wasn't anything sarcastic in this post. It was an ignorant statement. I realize that you were, indeed, being sarcastic when you said it, but still....

There is a reply button. It's at the bottom of each post. Little square. Says 'Reply'

Awww...well, shucks.....

I like my name (moniker). I'm a native Georgian and a Democrat and proud of both. Not changing it for you or anyone else, Horseyman. Wait, have you thought of changing to a moniker 'cause your name leaves you open to the humiliation you try to impose on me? I know you and some others hate the word Democrat and can't bring yourselves to pen it, so that's part of the fun for me. I have no problem writing or saying Republican. When I chose my Patch name, I never considered immaturity would come into play from other posters. Well, that's on you, not me. You admit you always think about what initials spell, so you're saying you deliberately chose to address me in an offensive manner. I only started calling you Horseyman in response, but now I like it. Seems to fit.

OK, I get you now. I will go ahead and apologize for my snarkiness. I just reply to the original post and it will insert it after the last reply made, thought that's what you meant earlier.

Oh, and sarcasm is sarcasm. Whichever form it's in. It is kind of fun though, isn't it?

You may be educable afterall, Karsten. Apology accepted. If this works, you taught me something (and probably others judging from where comments show up), that I didn't know . . . but only about replying after the original post. We'll see. I am new to this game.

Nope, didn't place in sequence after the last comment, but at least it's in the right vicinity.

When you reload the page it will go after the last comment....

Thanks, that helps. Reload . . . that's a gun term . . . you mean refresh? :D

Karsten- I truly admire your sand, but, please, give up, she is a hopeless partisan. She is playing you. For all we know she is a 400lb male prison inmate with too much time on his hands.

Awww . . . Mikey. did I hurt your feelings? :( Was it something I said? Karsten and I are having a little fun, aren't we Kars? You can play, too, if you'll be nice. It's easy to tell when you have no answers or logical comments. You bring out the insults, especially the sexist ones. I'm not male, a 400 pounder, and I'm not a hopeless partisan. I'm an upstanding citizen, a voting female, not obese (but could stand to lose a few lbs, gotta cut back on the CFA); I'm a moderate. Hopeless partisan is defined by the right wing . . . ask any Tea Partier.

When I use the word Partisan I am referring to anyone who claims any political party and then drinks that party's Kool-aid exclusively. I have many close liberal friends and many close conservative friends. Fewer and fewer of them buy into any of the current Parties exclusively.
As long as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Tea Party folks keep arguing among themselves and pointing fingers, The US Government and the Politicians are going to continue getting away with craziness.
The past is the past. We need to point our fingers at the people who are there now and from now on.

Mikey, honey, you don't get to re-define words. You can coin your own, but it sure would be a lot of work to get people to understand and use them. You don't have to be a card-carrying Dem or Repub, or even an Independent or Libertarian to be partisan. You can claim no political affiliation and still be partisan - your comments and views make you so. Likely those liberal friends you claim are either tired of arguments or they're playing you. I have a brother like that. He loves to stir up one side against the other and then he sits back and enjoys himself. My husband and I are pleasantly surprised at how many quiet Democrats there are all around us. Who'd a thunk it in the deep red South? But, tis true. I find that Democrats just don't argue as much. They're more confident in their views and don't have to keep convincing themselves and others. Me, I just enjoy following the scene. I'm interested. You really should drop that Kool-Aid reference. It's old and so stale it's growing mold. I pretty much thought everybody on this thread was pointing fingers at politicians, just not the same ones as those with opposing viewpoints. Everybody has their own perspective, largely based on their experience, family environment and education. The political system is what we have to work with. Look at the history of politics and govt. in the US. There have been fist fights and guns pulled on the floor of Congress. Even George Will says he thinks it's not so bad.

Doctors don't usually off someone on purpose.

Neither does a gun....

PEOPLE with guns do. You gun guys keep on ignoring that basic fact. Guess that's your best defense.

All the free Obama computers were Microsoft.

Why, thank you, Pam. I get your insult, but you don't seem to get sarcasm or my sense of humor.

Oh, Mikey, you're so clever.

Her comment certainly doesn't show that. You have to actually comprehend the words, not just read the letters. Thought she was teaching me something, or maybe she was just being snarky. Sometimes that works, most times it doesn't ;)
That's hilarious, what you said about Cons seeing both sides. All those I have heard and read would argue with the alphabet. 'All caps. No! upper/lower You're shouting. No I'm not, it's easier to type all caps.' 'I before e except after c.' That's not right - my down the street neighbor said her church friend's son's 4th grade teacher said it's e before i!' A, e, i, o, u and sometimes y. No way is y a vowel! Doesn't even look like one. Ask Vanna!' Believe I read Tim's article. I think you're a little too excited about it. Highjacked? Is that what you call whether someone chooses to comment? Do as I say, not as I do?

Horseyman, you want to be the only one who dishes. You can't stand it when you're called out on your foolishness. You must be taking your cues from Karl Rove, the dirtiest politician in the biz. You hurl your absurd, unfounded, insulting garbage at someone you can't intimidate. Are you homophobic and alcoholic? Makes me wonder because those two subjects seem to be at the forefront of your thoughts, as you do go on about them quite a lot. If you don't like or can't take what I have to say, then you should keep your "partisan" comments to yourself or point them at someone else. When anyone, even you, addresses me directly or refers to me, I will respond if I choose. You need to go back to your dark corner.

You and Mikey don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word partisan. You write like you think it means Democrat. Let me help: from Webster's or you can look up on the www: "someone who actively supports (a party, cause or principal)" Note, doesn't say Democrat, or Republican. You, my dear, are "partisan folk", too, since you only support the Con side. I know Mikey does. If I'm wrong, talk Democrat to me :D I prefer :D to lol, which is so overdone. And, there is no more opinionated group than Cons. Your definition of growth is my definition of retroactive. Have a nice evening.

GD- It appears you sucked another wine box dry before 10:00pm.
Karsten, Tammy, it's been real but I'm getting off of this ride.
Cheers,
Mike