Originally Posted by Mikebert

Those savings are for the economy as a while. I am talking about the impact on me personally. Bernie will raise my taxes by 17K, but I will get Medicare out of it, which will replace my current health insurance that costs about 3K (I have employer-provided insurance). Result it costs me 14K more.

Wait a minute. $3k might be your personal share of the premium, but there's no way that counts your company's whole share.

KFF says the average employee-sponsored plan costs $6,600 per individual covered. And the average worker is 40, so it's safe to assume the total plan cost for over-40 workers is higher (since age-rating is pretty much the only way they're allowed to differentiate rates).

The break-even salary for a typical, single, healthy 40-year old is probably right near an ~$80,000 salary. For a single 60 year old, it's probably closer to $120,000.

Of course, that assumes one is healthy and doesn't actually need to use said insurance.

This is a major roadblock to health reform: hidden costs. Everyone with employer-paid insurance thinks they're covered for "free" or they've got distorted information about how much the company health plan really costs. Haven't even scratched the surface on secondary costs like the amount of time and personnel dedicated to administering and negotiating the plan, or the out of pocket costs for someone who gets sick, or how many people end up losing their jobs (and coverage) when they do get sick enough to need medical intervention.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Those savings are for the economy as a while. I am talking about the impact on me personally. Bernie will raise my taxes by 17K, but I will get Medicare out of it, which will replace my current health insurance that costs about 3K (I have employer-provided insurance). Result it costs me 14K more.

What your employer spends on health insurance (the most expensive in the world) could go into some combination of enhanced profits and outright pay. Cost reductions for business, whether they come from lower taxes, lower prices due to the disappearance of monopoly, not having to pay bribes to corrupt officials, or a relaxed regulatory climate, make a company more profitable. Cost-loading of any kind makes economic activity more expensive. In an open market to foreign trade, higher costs due to built-in inefficiencies (like the most costly medical-payments system in the world) makes a country less competitive in the world market.

The biggest vendor to General Motors is... Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Many people have the same "gut" feel about Sander's that (Maryposa has) about Obamacare. The difference is the number of voters adversely affected (e.g. anyone would works for a big company with decent benefits) is much larger, and the negative impact is greater.

But more people work for companies with few or inadequate benefits. The idea was originally to give employees cause to stick with the giant enterprises (like the automakers and oil companies) that they were with instead of starting small businesses or going to start-ups. But the post-WWII era is over. The biggest private-sector employers include Wal*Mart and McDonald's.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

...Mr. Sanders said he could take two routes to break up the banks.[/I][/B] One would be to use Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act while a second would be to get his 2015 “Too Big To Fail, Too Big to Exist” act to be passed by Congress. That act would bar any financial institution deemed too big to fail from receiving financial assistance from the Federal Reserve and force the Treasury to break up the banks — rather than just deeming them systemically risky, as the current legislation does.

Another part of Mr. Sanders’ plan for cutting banks down to size is to implement a 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall Act — a 1933 law that separated stolid deposit-taking banks from riskier investment activities. It was repealed by former president Bill Clinton in 1999, a business-friendly piece of deregulation that left a stain on his legacy in the eyes of many progressives.

That last sentence goes a long way, in my opinion, to explaining why Hillary may be "soft-pedaling" this vitally important issue.

So I ask you, how much more specific does Bernie have to get on this issue without coming across as a policy wonk? Especially in a debate format. Recall that FDR was deliberately vague about his specific plans to combat the Great Depression prior to his election and inauguration.

OMG, are you really this uninformed and gullible???

You and all the BernieBots need to grow up and get it through your collective heads - THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY NEW LEGISLATION. If you refuse to believe me, go ask Paul Ryan or Mitch, the Turtle.

AND THAN INCLUDES GLASS-STEAGAL. It was repealed by legislation and it will take NEW LEGISLATION to bring it back, i.e., it ain't gonna happen.

Even if the near impossible happens and the Dems recovery the majority in the House, they are not going to get a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. Layer on top of that the fact that a lot of Dems believe Savior Sanders proposals are looney tunes, there is not going to be any new legislation that provides any means to deal with the banks.

Given the last 6 years, it is no longer ignorance or even willful ignorance to believe otherwise, it is being a political moron to believe otherwise.

What we are left with is existing law and regulation, and yes, that is Dodd-Frank. I find it amazingly cynical and hypocritical how Savior Sanders entire pitch is based on a law that he and his clueless Bots make a habit out of denigrating - that speaks volumes about the Savior and his flock.

The problem is Dodd-Frank doesn't actually give President Savior Sanders the power for years if ever at all.


Section 121 of Dodd-Frank requires a vote from the FED that such institutions pose a "grave threat to the financial stability of the United States," and a further vote from two-thirds of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. That means Sanders needs four of the seven Fed governors to go along with this plan, and seven of the 10 voting FSOC members to approve it. And that is just not going to happen at least any time soon.

If the current FED board thought the big banks needed to be broken up, it would be doing so already. Moreover, while Sanders could fill the two current vacant seats on the Fed board, the other five have long terms that extend until 2022 at the earliest. (Janet Yellen's term as Fed chair expires in 2018, but her term as a governor extends until 2024.) That's a long time to wait to gather the votes necessary for Sanders to implement his plan.

Even if the Fed assented, it would also need the concurrence of five of the following heads of these seven agencies: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Treasury Secretary, and a special independent insurance expert. ALL of whom have to be confirmed by the Senate, and just like new legislation that would break up banks, any one of these nominees that have a hint of willingness to support Sanders' plan will not have the slightest chance of confirmation.

But let's not stop there. Even if the Fed and the FSOC voted to break up the big banks, the legal challenge by the banks would make this process a long and bloody one. Section 121 of Dodd-Frank isn't quite as simple as Sanders makes it out to be. It doesn't allow regulators to just immediately force divestures. First they have to try restricting the ability of the company to offer risky products or imposing conditions on risky activities. Only if that fails can they move to the divestiture stage.

What's more, banks will fight this every step of the way in court. To force a breakup under Section 121, regulators will have to prove the institutions pose a "grave threat to financial stability," a vague legal term, but one which presumably has a high bar. The legal process would take years — and it's not at all clear the government would win. Everyone will get very use to, and eventually bored with, the words "arbitrary and cupreous"

But there is hope, brought to you by those who actually do the work rather than sit back and judge its purity and do nothing (see Senator Sanders). Under Section 165 of Dodd-Frank, the big banks are required to come up with a credible "living will" that would be executed should they ever get in trouble - it lays out how they would dissolve themselves should the face a crisis in a manner that will not put the rest of the financial sector at risk.

Their current plans have been deemed to be not credible by the FED and the banks are now under a deadline to fix the discrepancies, and resubmit for review. It is likely with the next review, discrepancies will remain and the regulatory apparatus will be coming up with forced remedies which include many many things tailored to the specific deficiency of each specific bank. Some of that may include divestitures, but anyone believing a bank will be made to "be disappeared" is either ignorant of our banking laws or is a moron.

Yes, the process is long and deliberate. Going back to the Constitution, it was made deliberately so. The purpose, of course, was to avoid the huge negative consequences of someone believing themselves more pure and more smart that everyone else coming along with an intellectually lazy following, i.e., a demigod, and creating great harm. We got one of those from the GOP in 2000, my fingers are crossed for good luck that we don't deliever a new one in 2016 from the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Today I learned that magic pony land has been hiding in plain site this entire time.

They've got free healthcare, free child day care, and they've even had free college for hundreds of years. Some people claim these colleges in magic pony land helped to lay the intellectual and academic groundwork for the enlightenment, liberalism, capitalism, and even the industrial revolution.

Most telling: Their national animal is a unicorn.

This magical place? It's actually called Scotland.

Scotland is a magical place, but that's not the magical unicorn belief I was referring to.

Instead, that would be believing that a President Savior Sanders will wave his magic wane and we become Scotland.

Give it some more thought. If you're really up for it, give Senator Mitch the Turtle a call and ask his opinion on the probability.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

"Democratic Debate: Clinton Dangerously Trumpets Obama’s Record"

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/democratic-debate-clinton-dangerously-trumpets-obamas-record/

During the series of Democratic debates, including the one last night hosted by CNN, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly trumpeted the record of President Obama in signing tough legislation to rein in Wall Street abuses when questioned on her money spigot flowing from Wall Street. According to her logic, since Obama’s campaign and his Super Pacs took plenty of money from Wall Street and went ahead and enacted tough Dodd-Frank reform legislation, why should her integrity be questioned...

Early in last night’s debate, when Sanders raised the fact that she and a Super Pac supporting her have taken $15 million from Wall Street, Clinton had this to say:

“Well, make — make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me, it’s an attack on President Obama. President Obama…You know, let me tell you why. You may not like the answer, but I’ll tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year. So this is — this is a phony — this is a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence or support, to undergird the continuation that he is putting forward in these attacks.”

What has remained unsaid in this debate cycle is that Dodd-Frank is the antithesis of financial reform with teeth and provided no real cops on the beat. Dodd-Frank is, in fact, the very evidence that Hillary says doesn’t exist to show that Wall Street bought itself a boatload of cozy deals from Obama in exchange for its cash windfall to his campaign.

When Obama took office in January 2009, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. At that point, Obama had two years to use his bully pulpit to enact meaningful legislation and put real cops on the beat. What did Dodd-Frank do instead? It gave increased authority to the Federal Reserve, the very regulator whose crony ties to Wall Street had prevented it from reining in the abuses that led to the 2008 crash. Just how ludicrous that structure was came into focus in 2012 when Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was sitting on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as his bank was being investigated by the Fed for gambling in derivatives with depositor funds and losing $6.2 billion.

Not only did Dodd-Frank fail to end future taxpayer bailouts of the mega banks, as stated just this week by the Vice Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Thomas Hoenig on the occasion of three of the five largest banks in the country flunking their regulatory plans to unwind in a crisis without taxpayer assistance, but the largest banks have moved beyond the frauds perpetrated during the crisis to serial new frauds — like rigging the interest rate benchmark known as Libor, and manipulating physical commodities markets and electric markets. In May of last year, for the first time in U.S. history, two of the nation’s largest banks, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, admitted to felony counts related to rigging the foreign currency markets.

And exactly what was it that President Obama ended with the Dodd-Frank law that Hillary finds so inspiring? The Wall Street mega banks have gotten materially bigger since the crash. Wall Street’s former lawyers sit in the top seats at the SEC and only recently exited the Justice Department’s top posts, ensuring that no bank executives went to jail over their role in the crash.

The rating agencies are still taking Wall Street’s dough and handing out ratings. Wall Street CEO pay and bonuses are still obscene: For the year 2015, in which JPMorgan received its third criminal felony count in two years time and settled more multi-billion-dollar charges with regulators, costing shareholders $35 billion over the prior four years, the bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, who had been at the helm during this crime spree received a pay boost of 35 percent or $27 million in total compensation...

If Hillary becomes president, she had best pray that the recent predictions by both Trump and Cruz of a looming crash don't come to pass. She will have nowhere to hide, rhetorically. Bernie, at least, can say, "I told you so."

There it is. In your previous post or two above, you lay out that Bernie's entire shtick rests on his use of Dodd-Frank to break up the banks, but here its just a shell of any real regulatory muscle.

I don't think that this cognitive dissonance is derived from cynicism or hypocrisy. It is clearly and simply intellectual laziness, a willingness to just accept others' 'thinking' because it is easier to do so.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

"The Fed Sends a Frightening Letter to JPMorgan and Corporate Media Yawns"

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/the-fed-sends-a-frightening-letter-to-jpmorgan-and-corporate-media-yawns/

Yesterday the Federal Reserve released a 19-page letter that it and the FDIC had issued to Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, on April 12 as a result of its failure to present a credible plan ["living will'] for winding itself down if the bank failed. The letter carried frightening passages and large blocks of redacted material in critical areas, instilling in any careful reader a sense of panic about the U.S. financial system.

A rational observer of Wall Street’s serial hubris might have expected some key segments of this letter to make it into the business press. A mere eight years ago the United States experienced a complete meltdown of its financial system, leading to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. President Obama and regulators have been assuring us over these intervening eight years that things are under control as a result of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. But according to the letter the Fed and FDIC issued on April 12 to JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank with over $2 trillion in assets and $51 trillion in notional amounts of derivatives, things are decidedly not under control.

At the top of page 11, the Federal regulators reveal that they have “identified a deficiency” in JPMorgan’s wind-down plan which if not properly addressed could “pose serious adverse effects to the financial stability of the United States.” Why didn’t JPMorgan’s Board of Directors or its legions of lawyers catch this?

It’s important to parse the phrasing of that sentence. The Federal regulators didn’t say JPMorgan could pose a threat to its shareholders or Wall Street or the markets. It said the potential threat was to “the financial stability of the United States.”

That statement should strike fear into even the likes of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who has been tilting at the shadows in shadow banks while buying into the Paul Krugman nonsense that “Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Is Working” when it comes to the behemoth banks on Wall Street.

Elizabeth Warren recently called out Paul Krugman--who's in the tank for Hillary--on this issue. Warren has far more credibility on this issue, as witnessed by the serious bank reform legislation that she has introduced. (If only she were running for President and not Hillary!)

How could one bank, even one as big and global as JPMorgan Chase, bring down the whole financial stability of the United States? Because, as the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) has explained in detail and plotted in pictures (see below), five big banks in the U.S. have high contagion risk to each other. Which bank poses the highest contagion risk? JPMorgan Chase...

The Federal Reserve and FDIC are clearly fingering their worry beads over the issue of “liquidity” in the next Wall Street crisis. That obviously has something to do with the fact that the Fed has received scathing rebuke from the public for secretly funneling over $13 trillion in cumulative, below-market-rate loans, often at one-half percent or less, to the big U.S. and foreign banks during the 2007-2010 crisis...

...Three of the five largest U.S. banks (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo) have now had their wind-down plans rejected by the Federal agency insuring bank deposits (FDIC) and the Federal agency (Federal Reserve) that secretly sluiced $13 trillion in rollover loans to the insolvent or teetering banks in the last epic crisis that continues to cripple the country’s economic growth prospects. Maybe it’s time for the major newspapers of this country to start accurately reporting on the scale of today’s banking problem.

Gad, are you secretly trying to show the inanity of a typical BernieBot? Is this a sly parody?

In a series of three posts, you first tell us Bernie is going to use Dodd Frank to break up the banks. The next one, you tell us Dodd-Frank is toothless. Then with this final one you assure us that the world will soon come to an end because the Dodd-Frank process is doing what its suppose to do in taking on the banks.

Whatever you're smoking, can you send us all some?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

For highly-paid professionals with employer-provided health coverage, that is a serious drawback.

Sanders would raise taxes in every income group that his GOP opponent would lower -




- and then he would explain how his new Obamacare (Berniecare?) would pay people back???


You people are completely clueless how dangerous you are to the Progressive agenda.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Do any of the other manufacturers and businesses have their own constitutional amendment?

In the aftermath of World War I, the British government had a surplus of rifles they were selling off as scrap. As they didn't want these weapons falling into the hands of Irish rebels, they drilled a hole in the barrel to make the rifle unusable as a weapon. Not all these weapons were scrapped. Some found their ways into collector's hands. One such rifle found its way into the hands of a friend of mine, but neither the seller nor the gunsmith who refurbished the weapon noticed the hole. Thus, my friend lost a part of a thumb, and filed a successful lawsuit that collected a good deal from the seller and gunsmith.

There is a difference between a lawsuit where there is true negligence or misrepresentation of what is being sold, and a lawsuit for selling a good product which the purchaser has a constitutional right to purchase, a product which performs as advertised and designed. The US legal system does recognize the difference, and legislatures have written additional law to make the distinction very clear. I approve. Does this make me authoritarian?

Only in your very confused mind.

Whenever I see you use the word 'ammosexual', the word 'ammophobic' pops to mind. You seem to have an acute fear of firearms, one that severely impacts your ability to comprehend law or basic facts relating to gun policy. I'd really rather not get going again with attempting to educate you, but it is hard ignoring the disinformation and crazy notions you keep posting.

If they have their own Constitutional Amendment, what do they have to fear???

And yes, you believing that your particular manufacturer is immune to citizens seeking judicial review of their grievances because you are an ammosexual does indicate you have the core attribute of an authoritarian - fortunately for the rest of us, you just lack the power to dictate your will to the rest of us. Scalia had it, but he's gone now, and I don't think your on anyone's short list.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If they have their own Constitutional Amendment, what do they have to fear???

Ammophobic jury nullification. No matter how clear the judge is in explaining the law, ammophobics are so prejudiced and ignorant that they might disregard the law.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And yes, you believing that your particular manufacturer is immune to citizens seeking judicial review of their grievances because you are an ammosexual does indicate you have the core attribute of an authoritarian - fortunately for the rest of us, you just lack the power to dictate your will to the rest of us. Scalia had it, but he's gone now, and I don't think your on anyone's short list.

Genuine grievances, sure. That's why I included my friend's tale of the World War I rifle. Those who sell and service guns ought to be held to the same level of accountability as those who sell and service any other sort of product. However, that a company sold a legal product that performed as designed is not a genuine grievance. If someone gets stabbed by a kitchen knife is the manufacturer of the knife or the retailer who sold it culpable? If someone dies in a car accident, and the driver or perhaps the traffic engineer that designed the intersection is found fully responsible, with no evidence that a flaw in the vehicle contributed, do you sue the car maker for making cars? In my opinion it is the ammophobics who are turning the law upside down, filing junk lawsuits that would be preemptively thrown out if any other type of product was at center. A law that the law stays right side up seems quite reasonable.

I don't own a gun. Never have. Haven's shot my bow in years. When I did, it was one of many hobbies, not the center of my life. So, anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is an ammophobic and authoritarian?

Is that all you've got? Argument by insult with nothing to back up your insults but bald faced lies? Do you confuse yourself with Noah Webster, having the right to redefine or invent words to allegedly prove some point? Do you have any concern at all for Truth, Law or self respect?

Originally Posted by playwrite

If they have their own Constitutional Amendment, what do they have to fear???

And yes, you believing that your particular manufacturer is immune to citizens seeking judicial review of their grievances because you are an ammosexual does indicate you have the core attribute of an authoritarian - fortunately for the rest of us, you just lack the power to dictate your will to the rest of us. Scalia had it, but he's gone now, and I don't think your on anyone's short list.

Let's stop the sexual references to firearms. Sure, a pistol has a phallic resemblance; as such it has an appeal to the sexually-repressed.

In any event, the militia clause allows the People to bear arms as is consistent with the needs of a militia for suppressing (in the old days) pirates, Indian attacks, and slave revolts. Persons who would be disqualified from being members of a militia due to mental incapacity or moral unreliability have no right to keep and bear arms. Note also that the militias are those responsible to elected State governments, and not to private militias.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're so close but so far away.


Out of thousands of manufacturers and businesses, you want one and only one type to be protected from lawsuits. You want that special exemption because you are an ammosexual and don't give a shXt about legal consistency or fairness - its your way because you say so.

That, my friend, is the root of an authoritarian.

What you have in common with t-baggers is not an aversion to authoritarianism, you are an authoritarian. It's just that you all also lack self awareness and project your serious personality flaws onto others. You should look into it.

You are projecting so hard it would power an IMAX theater...

Originally Posted by playwrite

OMG, are you really this uninformed and gullible???

You and all the BernieBots need to grow up and get it through your collective heads - THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY NEW LEGISLATION. If you refuse to believe me, go ask Paul Ryan or Mitch, the Turtle.

AND THAN INCLUDES GLASS-STEAGAL. It was repealed by legislation and it will take NEW LEGISLATION to bring it back, i.e., it ain't gonna happen.

Even if the near impossible happens and the Dems recovery the majority in the House, they are not going to get a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. Layer on top of that the fact that a lot of Dems believe Savior Sanders proposals are looney tunes, there is not going to be any new legislation that provides any means to deal with the banks.

Given the last 6 years, it is no longer ignorance or even willful ignorance to believe otherwise, it is being a political moron to believe otherwise.

Sanders and his followers hope for a political revolution, maybe in 2016, but more likely in the future. I would say in 2016 the chances of his Revolution succeeding would combine his rather poor (but not impossible, until a defeat Tuesday) chances of winning the presidency, with the poor chances of flipping the Senate to 60-40 progressive Dem in 2016 plus a House flip to progressive Dem too. That's pretty slim chances. But Bernie's Revolution may only be starting. His showing and that of Trump shows that the people are getting restive with the ownership of American society by the 1% or less.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Ammophobic jury nullification. No matter how clear the judge is in explaining the law, ammophobics are so prejudiced and ignorant that they might disregard the law.

You know as well as I do that it would go to the SCOTUS, and sorry, there's no jury there for the judge to instruct.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Genuine grievances, sure. That's why I included my friend's tale of the World War I rifle. Those who sell and service guns ought to be held to the same level of accountability as those who sell and service any other sort of product. However, that a company sold a legal product that performed as designed is not a genuine grievance. If someone gets stabbed by a kitchen knife is the manufacturer of the knife or the retailer who sold it culpable? If someone dies in a car accident, and the driver or perhaps the traffic engineer that designed the intersection is found fully responsible, with no evidence that a flaw in the vehicle contributed, do you sue the car maker for making cars? In my opinion it is the ammophobics who are turning the law upside down, filing junk lawsuits that would be preemptively thrown out if any other type of product was at center. A law that the law stays right side up seems quite reasonable.

I don't own a gun. Never have. Haven's shot my bow in years. When I did, it was one of many hobbies, not the center of my life. So, anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is an ammophobic and authoritarian?

Is that all you've got? Argument by insult with nothing to back up your insults but bald faced lies? Do you confuse yourself with Noah Webster, having the right to redefine or invent words to allegedly prove some point? Do you have any concern at all for Truth, Law or self respect?

This is not about you disagreeing with me. This is about you making the judgement that one manufacturer is above anyone having the legal right to bring legal grievance to court. There are junk lawsuits, attempts to "turning the law upside down, and they get thrown out through the judicial system; they are not legislated away. Your choosing the straw men to knock down doesn't change that. You're putting guns above everything else. It's weird.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Let's stop the sexual references to firearms. Sure, a pistol has a phallic resemblance; as such it has an appeal to the sexually-repressed.

Be sure to let this guy know -

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is about you making the judgement that one manufacturer is above anyone having the legal right to bring legal grievance to court.

Look, I get that you are a coward, an ammophobic. Fear of guns isn’t totally irrational. However, this fear is paralyzing your ability to understand the law.

As examples, I’ll use knives, pistols and cars as three types of objects that are manufactured, sold, repaired and used. Let’s assume that all three should be treated equally under law. I’ll assert that manufacturers, sellers, repairmen and users might all be subject to lawsuits if they are at fault. The faults are somewhat different depending on what role one is playing.

If a manufacturer uses faulty materials, shoddy workmanship, or the product otherwise fails to work as designed and advertised, he is subject to suit.

If the seller, notably of a used product, fails to note and advise the buyer of a fault or wear in the product he is selling, and injury results, he might be subject to suit.

If a repairman does not properly repair an product such that the product becomes dangerous to operate and results in injury, he is subject to suit.

If the user of the object through negligence or malice should cause an injury using some object, he is subject to suit.

I don’t think there is a disagreement on this? All of the above is and ought to be true of all products, including firearms?

What is unique about ammophobics is that they seem to believe that if the user is at fault one should be able to sue the manufacturer. If one drives a car into a crowd at speed, sue the auto maker? If someone uses match heads to build a pressure cooker bomb, sue the match and pressure cooker makers? Some ammophobics seem to think that before a weapon is manufactured, the factory should perform a full psychological profile of every individual who might conceivably come to own the weapon? Hey, I’m all in favor of background checks, but it’s law enforcement who should be maintaining the data base, and retailers who should be checking the data base before selling. If the process fails because the retailer doesn’t check the data base, sue the retailer. If the process fails because law enforcement’s data base was flawed, I could see suing law enforcement. That usually doesn’t work so well, but if the negligence is really there I won’t object to a suit.

But the basic point is that if an individual has done nothing wrong the courts shouldn’t be punishing them. If someone slips on a bar of soap, does one sue the company that made the soap? You could try, but that would be a junk suit that should be dismissed with contempt.

From my perspective, it is the ammophobics who want to treat firearms differently than how every other manufactured, sold or maintained object is treated.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Those savings are for the economy as a while. I am talking about the impact on me personally. Bernie will raise my taxes by 17K, but I will get Medicare out of it, which will replace my current health insurance that costs about 3K (I have employer-provided insurance). Result it costs me 14K more.


If this is so why didn't voters show up in the primaries? Turning was considerably less than in 2008.

Many people have the same "gut" feel about Sander's that you do about Obamacare. The difference is the number of voters adversely affected (e.g. anyone would works for a big company with decent benefits) is much larger, and the negative impact is greater.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sande...n-family-1200/

Originally Posted by marypoza

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sande...n-family-1200/

I think you're right on that. Medicare works great for me, although I still have to pay something too now. A small payroll tax, even with the relatively small payment I make as a "senior," (I put that in quotes ), is nothing compared to the premiums and deductibles imposed by insurance companies. The obstacles to single payer are merely political. Bernie is raising the fact that it needs to be done, and it's much simpler than our current system. The people and the politicians need to shift.

Clinton is staying within the currently possible in her policies. I think her heart is in the right place, but she is mindful of the 1990s mindset she has dwelled in. I think she can be pushed beyond it, if convinced that the people are behind it. I expect she will only be president for 4 years, if she's elected, and Republican opposition is still formidable. So, single-payer appears unlikely to pass soon, but I would think that before this 4T is over in 2028-29, it can be done.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Look, I get that you are a coward, an ammophobic. Fear of guns isn’t totally irrational. However, this fear is paralyzing your ability to understand the law.

As examples, I’ll use knives, pistols and cars as three types of objects that are manufactured, sold, repaired and used. Let’s assume that all three should be treated equally under law. I’ll assert that manufacturers, sellers, repairmen and users might all be subject to lawsuits if they are at fault. The faults are somewhat different depending on what role one is playing.

If a manufacturer uses faulty materials, shoddy workmanship, or the product otherwise fails to work as designed and advertised, he is subject to suit.

If the seller, notably of a used product, fails to note and advise the buyer of a fault or wear in the product he is selling, and injury results, he might be subject to suit.

If a repairman does not properly repair an product such that the product becomes dangerous to operate and results in injury, he is subject to suit.

If the user of the object through negligence or malice should cause an injury using some object, he is subject to suit.

I don’t think there is a disagreement on this? All of the above is and ought to be true of all products, including firearms?

What is unique about ammophobics is that they seem to believe that if the user is at fault one should be able to sue the manufacturer. If one drives a car into a crowd at speed, sue the auto maker? If someone uses match heads to build a pressure cooker bomb, sue the match and pressure cooker makers? Some ammophobics seem to think that before a weapon is manufactured, the factory should perform a full psychological profile of every individual who might conceivably come to own the weapon? Hey, I’m all in favor of background checks, but it’s law enforcement who should be maintaining the data base, and retailers who should be checking the data base before selling. If the process fails because the retailer doesn’t check the data base, sue the retailer. If the process fails because law enforcement’s data base was flawed, I could see suing law enforcement. That usually doesn’t work so well, but if the negligence is really there I won’t object to a suit.

But the basic point is that if an individual has done nothing wrong the courts shouldn’t be punishing them. If someone slips on a bar of soap, does one sue the company that made the soap? You could try, but that would be a junk suit that should be dismissed with contempt.

From my perspective, it is the ammophobics who want to treat firearms differently than how every other manufactured, sold or maintained object is treated.

OK. Users have some responsibility for not misusing a product. Someone sued for a fatal incident involving Alka-Seltzer after the schmuck took the effervescent tablets straight instead of first putting them in water and letting them fizz. Makers of Alka-Seltzer won because Alka-Seltzer had shown how to use the product properly in its advertising. Many objects from dogs to cakes of soap are inherently dangerous if mishandled. So if you are a burglar and you go into a house through a dog door and meet Mr. R. Ottweiler or Ms. D. O. Berman and get mauled badly, you will not win a case against the dog breeder. With reasonable care a motor vehicle will not get into a collision without some fault of the driver of at least one vehicle or conditions... but if the car has a serious design failure you might be able to sue and get relief from the manufacturer.

With a firearm or ammo one might have a successful suit if the firearm injures the shooter because of a fault of the gun. Thus if the gun barrel is defective and explodes, yielding shrapnel that injures the shooter, then the shooter might win a lawsuit. But guns do not judge their owners.

It is reasonable to prohibit people like criminals, persons with restraining orders (and their spouses as well), people on terrorist-watch lists, the dishonorably-discharged, drug addicts, the insane, the mentally-retarded, and children from owning and using firearms. Existing gun laws need be enforced. Which mouse will put the bell on the cat?

Should the Constitution be amended in a Constitutional Convention, those in the convention might consider re-writing the Second Amendment to include a non-discrimination clause and a prohibition against bringing firearms into another State to circumvent the laws of that state; thus, if New York State laws prohibit a New Yorker from buying a gun in New York, then buying a gun from a retailer in Virginia and bringing it into New York must be a violation of Federal law.

Originally Posted by B Butler

From my perspective, it is the ammophobics who want to treat firearms differently than how every other manufactured, sold or maintained object is treated.

It seems to me that a good middle ground would be to follow the lead of automobile manufactures and require the use of safety equipment. An analogy to seatbelts and airbags for automobiles would be safely locks for firearms so that four-year-olds don't accidently shoot their siblings or parents.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Look, I get that you are a coward, an ammophobic. Fear of guns isn’t totally irrational. However, this fear is paralyzing your ability to understand the law.

As examples, I’ll use knives, pistols and cars as three types of objects that are manufactured, sold, repaired and used. Let’s assume that all three should be treated equally under law. I’ll assert that manufacturers, sellers, repairmen and users might all be subject to lawsuits if they are at fault. The faults are somewhat different depending on what role one is playing.

If a manufacturer uses faulty materials, shoddy workmanship, or the product otherwise fails to work as designed and advertised, he is subject to suit.

If the seller, notably of a used product, fails to note and advise the buyer of a fault or wear in the product he is selling, and injury results, he might be subject to suit.

If a repairman does not properly repair an product such that the product becomes dangerous to operate and results in injury, he is subject to suit.

If the user of the object through negligence or malice should cause an injury using some object, he is subject to suit.

I don’t think there is a disagreement on this? All of the above is and ought to be true of all products, including firearms?

What is unique about ammophobics is that they seem to believe that if the user is at fault one should be able to sue the manufacturer. If one drives a car into a crowd at speed, sue the auto maker? If someone uses match heads to build a pressure cooker bomb, sue the match and pressure cooker makers? Some ammophobics seem to think that before a weapon is manufactured, the factory should perform a full psychological profile of every individual who might conceivably come to own the weapon? Hey, I’m all in favor of background checks, but it’s law enforcement who should be maintaining the data base, and retailers who should be checking the data base before selling. If the process fails because the retailer doesn’t check the data base, sue the retailer. If the process fails because law enforcement’s data base was flawed, I could see suing law enforcement. That usually doesn’t work so well, but if the negligence is really there I won’t object to a suit.

But the basic point is that if an individual has done nothing wrong the courts shouldn’t be punishing them. If someone slips on a bar of soap, does one sue the company that made the soap? You could try, but that would be a junk suit that should be dismissed with contempt.

From my perspective, it is the ammophobics who want to treat firearms differently than how every other manufactured, sold or maintained object is treated.

I got the impression he is or was a shooter. Was in 'Nam. Maybe even a sniper at some point?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

It seems to me that a good middle ground would be to follow the lead of automobile manufactures and require the use of safety equipment. An analogy to seatbelts and airbags for automobiles would be safely locks for firearms so that four-year-olds don't accidently shoot their siblings or parents.

Safety locks can not be trusted to work when you need them. As some people point out, you do not see the Secret Service using them.

But tyhe little peope? Sure.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Safety locks can not be trusted to work when you need them. As some people point out, you do not see the Secret Service using them.

But the little people? Sure.

The usual Secret Service agent is highly organized in keeping and bearing arms. The usual person who owns a bunch of loose guns isn't so organized.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Safety locks can not be trusted to work when you need them. As some people point out, you do not see the Secret Service using them.

But tyhe little peope? Sure.

"Safety locks cannot be trusted ...?" What does that even mean? My guns in my gun safe are pretty darn "trustworthy!" No kid is going to get in there.

And ... I guess I'm assuming that you are comparing the average civilian gun-owner to the Secret Service, as a kind of joke?

If not ... I'd like to point out that the average citizen's environment is one hell of a lot less labile than the average Secret Service person on duty. It's ridiculous comparisons like this that have me convinced that rational conversations about our guns are pretty much impossible in this country.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Look, I get that you are a coward, an ammophobic. Fear of guns isn’t totally irrational. However, this fear is paralyzing your ability to understand the law.

As examples, I’ll use knives, pistols and cars as three types of objects that are manufactured, sold, repaired and used. Let’s assume that all three should be treated equally under law. I’ll assert that manufacturers, sellers, repairmen and users might all be subject to lawsuits if they are at fault. The faults are somewhat different depending on what role one is playing.

If a manufacturer uses faulty materials, shoddy workmanship, or the product otherwise fails to work as designed and advertised, he is subject to suit.

If the seller, notably of a used product, fails to note and advise the buyer of a fault or wear in the product he is selling, and injury results, he might be subject to suit.

If a repairman does not properly repair an product such that the product becomes dangerous to operate and results in injury, he is subject to suit.

If the user of the object through negligence or malice should cause an injury using some object, he is subject to suit.

I don’t think there is a disagreement on this? All of the above is and ought to be true of all products, including firearms?

What is unique about ammophobics is that they seem to believe that if the user is at fault one should be able to sue the manufacturer. If one drives a car into a crowd at speed, sue the auto maker? If someone uses match heads to build a pressure cooker bomb, sue the match and pressure cooker makers? Some ammophobics seem to think that before a weapon is manufactured, the factory should perform a full psychological profile of every individual who might conceivably come to own the weapon? Hey, I’m all in favor of background checks, but it’s law enforcement who should be maintaining the data base, and retailers who should be checking the data base before selling. If the process fails because the retailer doesn’t check the data base, sue the retailer. If the process fails because law enforcement’s data base was flawed, I could see suing law enforcement. That usually doesn’t work so well, but if the negligence is really there I won’t object to a suit.

But the basic point is that if an individual has done nothing wrong the courts shouldn’t be punishing them. If someone slips on a bar of soap, does one sue the company that made the soap? You could try, but that would be a junk suit that should be dismissed with contempt.

From my perspective, it is the ammophobics who want to treat firearms differently than how every other manufactured, sold or maintained object is treated.

Wow, that's a lot of gibberish; not your usual.

First, a phobia has nothing to do with being a coward. Try the dictionary.

Second, I've been around guns nearly my entire life. And, I've used them for more purposes than most people. I'm not afraid of guns, but ammosexuals do make me nervous - I've always avoided having any in my hunting party, not too difficult since very few of them actually hunt.

Third, can you stop with the idiotic strawmen - they're pretty brainless and beneath you.

The issue that gun control advocates want to bring to court is whether a manufacturer or dealer has been complicit in certain specific crimes (e.g., mass killings) carried out by certain specific people (e.g., minors, mentally ill) with certain weapons (e.g., guns lacking basic safety features, high capacity weapons and high velocity rounds) by willful and irresponsible marketing of those weapons to those people. They are not seeking to take away the general right to gun ownership, they are going after business models that put certain weapons into the hands of the wrong people that use them in the worst way.

Obviously, you disagree with whether gun manufacturers should be subject to such lawsuits, but you can't use the 2nd Amendment as your basis because that is not what is at stake. What is at stake are business models, gun safety features, and perhaps eventually your often discussed historic determination that had the ironic result of putting semi-machine guns in the hands of civilians.

Why are you so afraid of that?

Perhaps for all your attempts at convincing us of the ironclad certainty of the 2nd Amendment keeping us drowning in five firearms for every man, woman and child in this country, you're just not as sure as you want the rest of us to believe.

Originally Posted by TnT

"Safety locks cannot be trusted ...?" What does that even mean? My guns in my gun safe are pretty darn "trustworthy!" No kid is going to get in there.

And ... I guess I'm assuming that you are comparing the average civilian gun-owner to the Secret Service, as a kind of joke?

If not ... I'd like to point out that the average citizen's environment is one hell of a lot less labile than the average Secret Service person on duty. It's ridiculous comparisons like this that have me convinced that rational conversations about our guns are pretty much impossible in this country.

It is all about irrational fears, indeed -- the fear beyond rational calculation, the one chance in a million that one will hear inexplicable commotion in your daughter's bedroom, and walk in when she fails to respond because some creep has a hand on her mouth or has knocked her out, you find that she is being raped (she is under the age of consent), and, loaded gun in your hand you are able to end the rape with a gunshot to the creep's neck. Oh, I can think of rational and likely uses of a firearm, like scaring off a grizzly bear, sport hunting, or target shooting.

It is hard to have a rational discussion of a disgusting, heart-wrenching or life-threatening situation of low likelihood with much rational thought. The real problem is that an incalculable number of people have no acceptable cause for owning a firearm. Yes, I can think of the horrible slaughter of the females in the family of a doctor in Cheshire, Connecticut... and I can think of a very strong deterrent to the horrible crime.

One of the best reasons that I can think of for not committing a burglary.