Originally Posted by Joral

Some of the Finnish Mosins are worth a bit more, and are remarked to be more accurate. I have a 91/30 dated 1939 that was about $95 a few years ago. All of the numbers match except the magazine. Quite different from the U.S. and German WW2 rifle prices. They did build them by the millions though.

I would love to pick one up eventually, unfortunately space is the gun safe is becomming critical. I may need to upgrade that first.

I do however have a line on an M1 Garand (no idea on age or condition) owned by a family friend who sadly has terminal cancer. He has granted me "first dibs" on purchasing it from his estate when he dies. It may be an offer I can't refuse.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Anyway, since the topic provides me the barest excuse, I present the boys-of-a-couple-years-back in front of one of the exhibit posters ("The Man, The Weapon, The Legend") at the army museum in Peterburg:

Ha. Excellent photo.

Michele Bachmann thinks her fellow Minnesota Congressman Keith Eliison (who is a Muslim) is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Does she have no shame?

This woman is an embarrassment to my state.

Originally Posted by Odin

Michele Bachmann thinks her fellow Minnesota Congressman Keith Eliison (who is a Muslim) is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Does she have no shame?

This woman is an embarrassment to my state.

No, just a complete and callous disregard for truth. The Joseph P. McCarthy of her time -- except that she is more concerned with the Green (Islamic) threat than the Red (Commie) threat.

The problem is that many politicians who should be embarrassments to their states are highly popular in their districts.

This cartoon was made in the 60s for the New Democratic Party in Canada. It is very relevant for us today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

If Romney is really this dumb, he is really scary as the WH occupant -

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...ney/?mobile=nc

Romney’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money

I mean taking Obama out of context and presenting red meat to t-baggers is one thing, but not vetting your poster boy in a national ad??

What next, is Romney going to get Jerry Sandusky in an ad promoting Mitten's position on no child left behind???

Ya really want this blithering idiot in the WH?

Originally Posted by playwrite

If Romney is really this dumb, he is really scary as the WH occupant -

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...ney/?mobile=nc



I mean taking Obama out of context and presenting red meat to t-baggers is one thing, but not vetting your poster boy in a national ad??

What next, is Romney going to get Jerry Sandusky in an ad promoting Mitten's position on no child left behind???

Ya really want this blithering idiot in the WH?

Romney knows better.


This is all about setting the Randian narritive that the elite are Job Creators and (for profet0 Service Providers are being beyond mere humanity. The elite are to be more or less worshipped in a top down system where those at the top look out for their own self enrichment, and at least for those at the top, questioning how they got it is improper.
After all, the Gekko said.

From http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/



Mitt Romney is unelectable. He is flopping and flailing everywhere. No amount of lying or etch-a-sketching can save his campaign. The only shot Republicans really have to win the White House now is to nominate a new candidate at the Republican Convention. Mitt Romney is a terrible campaigner and the public does not like him nor do they trust him.
Some Republicans know this. Indeed, Rick Santorum made the point that Mitt Romney was the worst candidate to go up against Obamacare since Romney passed the same damn thing in Massachusetts.
Republicans Rick Perry, Bill Kristol, Haley Barber, George Will and many others are calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns yet Mitt remains recalcitrant.
Republicans do yourself a favor and dump Mitt. Pick a new candidate. It’s the only shot you got. Otherwise you will continue to witness the implosion of the Romney campaign over the next several months. The Bain drip continues. The Tax return drip continues. The offshore accounts, the out sourcing of jobs to China, being for the mandate before Mitt was against it, and all of the other Romney flip flops are adding up to a big time fail.
Mitt Romney also has no new ideas. He has offered no new economic vision for America except the same Bush policies and Reaganomics we have tried for over 30 years that have not worked. It seems Mitt is running for President just so he can give himself and his billionaire backers another round of tax cuts.
Mitt has shown time and time again he prefers foreign banks, foreign workers, and doing business in foreign countries. So who’s the real foreigner here?

Filed under 2012 Elections, Politics. Tagged Bush, Etch-A-Sketch, Flip Flopper, foreigner, Mitt Romney, Reaganomics, tax cuts, tax returns
Comment
Mitt Romney Needs To Thank President Eisenhower and Big Government For His Wealth

Posted by PoliShifter on 17 July 2012, 11:39 am
Mitt Romney tried to give a speech today claiming that entrepreneurs build their businesses on their own and that government doesn’t help businesses. He rattled off some big names like Steve Jobs who preferred to have his iPhones made by wage slaves in China. He rattled off Henry Ford and Bill Gates. Mitt Romney tried to make the claim that these people were successful on their own – as if they had no help.
This was Mitt Romney’s attempt to push back on President Obama who rightly said all of us got some help somewhere along the line. No one is successful on their own. It’s our infrastructure, our rail systems, our power grid, our natural resources, our court system, our police, fire fighters, public education, and university system that makes it possible for some of us to be very successful.
Those of you who think you can make it all by yourself there is a very simple solution. Move to Somalia and make your billions of dollars there. See how far you get without reliable running water, reliable electricity, or an efficient sewer system. See how far you get going up against War Lords with no police force to keep you safe.
But specifically Mitt Romney owes his existence to Big Government. It was President Eisenhower that pushed through the Interstate Highway System. This created jobs in this country for over 20 years. It boosted the auto industry to record sales. Mitt Romney’s dad was able to build a prosperous career at American Motors Corporation because of this.
George Romney’s prosperity allowed him to send his son Mitt to the best schools which prepared Mitt to make a fortune in business. If it weren’t for Big Government Mitt Romney would likely not be running for President. He’d probably be working at a hardware store instead selling paint.

Filed under 2012 Elections, Economics, Politics. Tagged AMC, American Motors Corporation, big government, Eisenhower, George Romney, Interstate Highway System, Mitt Romney, President Obama
Comment

Must Be Some Bad Stuff In Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

Posted by PoliShifter on 16 July 2012, 11:24 am
Mitt Romney is still refusing to release more than one year of tax returns. Why? There must be some bad shit in there he doesn’t want anyone to know about.
And this whole retroactive retirement from Bain? Is anyone buying that? Mitt Romney is a complete fraud and total liar. He is the biggest flip flopper I have ever seen in politics.
He was pro-choice – now he claims to be pro-life
He was for government run healthcare in Massachusetts and supported the individual mandate – now he is against it
He was in favor of “self deportation” and harsh crack downs on immigrants during the Republican Primary debates now he is for a path to citizenship.
He said he was not Reagan Bush and did not want to return to Reagan Bush type trickle down economics – now his entire economic agenda is supply side trickle down Reaganomics. He wants more tax cuts for himself and his billionaire buddies. It hasn’t worked in 30 years yet he says he wants to try it again.
He was for gun control and now says he is an NRA member and against gun control.
He used to be concerned about global climate change now he is all about drill baby drill.
He used to be in favor of embryonic stem cell research now he is against it.
He used to be against tax pledges now he is a disciple of Grover Norquist.
This man can’t be trusted with the Presidency. He is an etch-a-sketch and the billionaires will write on his blank slate whatever it is they want done.

Apparently, to the TPers focusing on anyone except the needs of the 1% makes you an evil communist...

Jon Kyl Berates Obama For Focus On Middle Class

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama should stop talking about the middle class because it turns people against rich Americans, who should be embraced as the Michael Jordans of the U.S. economy, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Monday.

Declaring that the use of the phrase "middle class" is "misguided and wrong and even dangerous," Kyl argued in a Senate floor speech that Obama is "spreading economic resentment [that] weakens American values" and ignoring "the uniquely meritocratic basis of our society."

“We have a president who talks incessantly about class, particularly the middle class,” Kyl said.

"I just think the whole discussion of class is wrong. It's not what we do here in America," said Kyl, the Senate minority whip. He added, "I don't think there's anything called 'middle class values' that are different from the values of other people in this country. Tell me what's different about the values of someone who the president identifies as middle class?"

Democrats have long argued that the nation's tax system favors the wealthy, and with the economic downturn, inequality has reached levels not seen since the roaring '20s.

Over the winter, the Occupy Wall Street movement focused popular attention on the divide between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country, with organizers arguing that it was time to stop rigging the system to favor rich, corporate special interests while the rest suffer. Democrats have embraced that message on the campaign trail, with some success.

But Kyl said he sees the rich very differently -- more like sports heroes along the line of Chicago Bulls great Michael Jordan.

"When Michael Jordan came, after he established how great he would be, he was given an enormous, almost unheard of salary. Did the other players say, 'That's not fair?' No, actually all the other players got big salary increases, too," Kyl said. "The whole franchise did well, the people selling popcorn, the people parking the cars ... made more money than they ever would have had Michael Jordan never came to the team."

Kyl's remarks come in the context of the Senate's debate this week on whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for not just people earning under $250,000, but for the wealthiest Americans as well.

Many Democrats note that the growing income disparity escalated with the Bush tax cuts, and that job creation under Bush's presidency was among the weakest in modern history.

Originally Posted by Odin

Apparently, to the TPers focusing on anyone except the needs of the 1% makes you an evil communist...

Jon Kyl Berates Obama For Focus On Middle Class

Wow..... at least he was right to the point as misguided as it might be. Lol

Originally Posted by Odin

Apparently, to the TPers focusing on anyone except the needs of the 1% makes you an evil communist...

Jon Kyl Berates Obama For Focus On Middle Class

The questionable principles behind the actions of the Hard Right are bared: Government is to represent wealth or income -- and not the People.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The model for the New America (Oklahoma)

6. Right-to-Work Hurts Everyone
........
Sources: AFL-CIO, Death on the Job, 2010; Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2009-2010 Assets and Opportunities Scorecard; Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts.org National Education Association, Rankings and Estimates – Rankings of the States 2009 and Estimates of School Statistics 2010, December 2009; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009, June 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2010.

Not disagreeing about right to work being a bad thing (I'm going to be a Teamster in October) but it seems that report may confuse correlation with causation. Southern states tend to have crappy services and lots of bad social outcomes and they tend to be "right to work" states. But those states had crappy services and bad social outcomes long before Taft-Hartley allowed "right to work" legislation on the state level. Right to work might make it harder for workers in the state to catch up but I don't think you can blame it exclusively for how far behind they are.

On the gun thing, personally I'd rather know if someone's carrying a gun (though I'd rather they weren't). I've been on the wrong end of a gun twice in my life (both times they were "just joking") and I'd rather have some warning that someone's an Idjit, but that's just me.

Oklahoma (and "flyover country" in general) has a lot of people are "fundamentalists" (i.e. someone who takes something I don't believe more seriously than I think they ought). Deal with it. One of the first "liberal" ideas I embraced is the idea that protecting the rights of the minority to free expression is a way of protecting my own rights.The "fundies" freedom to hand out coasters in Oklahoma is the LGBT community's freedom to hand out fliers denouncing Chik-Fil-A in Boston.

Mr. Ragnarok, your points about Mitt Romney are well-taken.

However, the problem with saying the Republicans should nominate someone else, is that all the other choices are just as bad; unless it's someone not running, who is therefore unlikely to accept.

The only sensible approach is not to support any Republican for anything. So who cares who they nominate?

Anyway, good post!

One thing I do wish though: That "progressives" would be honest and admit that it is more like the top 20% that are in their cross-hairs rather than the top 1%.

But we all know what Billy Joel sang about honesty.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

One thing I do wish though: That "progressives" would be honest and admit that it is more like the top 20% that are in their cross-hairs rather than the top 1%.

But we all know what Billy Joel sang about honesty.

Ah, the Senate Dems just passed a bill to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for 98% of taxpayers.

How do you square that reality to your conjecture?

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

Not disagreeing about right to work being a bad thing (I'm going to be a Teamster in October) but it seems that report may confuse correlation with causation. Southern states tend to have crappy services and lots of bad social outcomes and they tend to be "right to work" states. But those states had crappy services and bad social outcomes long before Taft-Hartley allowed "right to work" legislation on the state level. Right to work might make it harder for workers in the state to catch up but I don't think you can blame it exclusively for how far behind they are.

Most "Right-to-Work (for much less)" states were those Southern states slow to industrialize. The agrarian elites dominated political life, and they needed cheap farm labor to have maximal profitability for the Plantation. Industrial jobs would have been competition for workers and would have driven up wages. Then machinery supplanted much of the farm labor. Those agrarian states had to industrialize fast -- with cheap labor, of course -- if they weren't going to have the long-term unemployment characteristic of southeastern Kentucky.. Thus "Right-to-Work (for much less)" solved a couple of problems.

Correlation and causation are not to be confused. I figure that most of the RTW states underpay teachers, which is not good for educational results. I have suggested that one of the connections between collective-bargaining states and the cost of living is that the collective-bargaining states (except perhaps Michigan and Ohio) have expensive real estate.

Employers want RTW so that they can 'negotiate one-on-one' with employees. On the surface, one-on-one sounds fair... but an employer can easily spy upon an employee and find out whether one is in a poor position of bargaining and exploit that. (Of course, such would be an extremely good reason to have a union. Most people are not good at self-promotion, especially if such is not a bona fide qualification for the job).

On the gun thing, personally I'd rather know if someone's carrying a gun (though I'd rather they weren't). I've been on the wrong end of a gun twice in my life (both times they were "just joking") and I'd rather have some warning that someone's an Idjit, but that's just me.

Firearms are not playthings, and suitable for comedy only on the stage in accordance with the conventions of the stage. Edison's The Great Train Robbery created mass panic when a bad guy pointed his gun toward the camera (in effect the viewing audience), creating a scare for people who thought the movie all too real. That was over a hundred years ago. Anyone who doesn't take firearms with deadly seriousness is an "idjit".

Oklahoma (and "flyover country" in general) has a lot of people are "fundamentalists" (i.e. someone who takes something I don't believe more seriously than I think they ought). Deal with it. One of the first "liberal" ideas I embraced is the idea that protecting the rights of the minority to free expression is a way of protecting my own rights. The "fundies" freedom to hand out coasters in Oklahoma is the LGBT community's freedom to hand out fliers denouncing Chik-Fil-A in Boston.

But the Final Destination is extremely important. If you had the choice between spending eternity in a place that looks like a subtropical paradise with fresh air and a climate like that of San Francisco but has beautiful gospel singing (sorry -- not Mozart) or a godless, ugly, cacophonous, stench-filled nightmare of heat, pain, and regret, what would you choose? Sure, that is a false dichotomy, but fundamentalism of any kind forces false dichotomies for personal choices. "Believe it or burn", "revolution or death", or "Obey the Fuehrer or go to a torture chamber" are enforceable dichotomies under any totalitarian system. Objective reality may not be an option.

If there is a Hell, the real terror is who is there. Forget the noise, the stench, the heat, and going barefoot on a surface of needles or thorns. If I had to choose between going where the Nazis are or where most of their Jewish victims are, it's clear which I would choose. And I am not Jewish!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, the Senate Dems just passed a bill to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for 98% of taxpayers.

How do you square that reality to your conjecture?

Also, a lot of people forget that the tax hike if passed would just be a return to the Clinton era rates.
A tax increase wouldn't even begin until after one reaches 250k.
With some of the wailing and moaning in the press one might well believe that everyone with an income over 250k is suddenly going to be taxed at an American High rate of 91% on all of their income.

That High-era rate was on the equivalent in today's dollars of $1.6 million plus.

Major party nominees always move to the center after the primaries, right?

Well.

Usual disclaimers apply

Originally Posted by The Moderate Voice

Here are the two great campaign mysteries at midsummer: Why does Mitt Romney appear to be getting so much traction from ripping a few of President Obama’s words out of context? And why aren’t Romney and other Republicans moving to the political center as the election approaches?

Both mysteries point to an important fact about the 2012 campaign: For conservatives, this is a go-for-broke election. They and a Republican Party now under their control hope to eke out a narrow victory in November on the basis of a quite radical program that includes more tax cuts for the rich, deep reductions in domestic spending, big increases in military spending, and a sharp rollback in government regulation.

In the process, the right hopes to redefine middle-of-the-road policies as “left wing,” thereby altering the balance in the American political debate.

What should alarm both liberals and moderates is that this is the rare election in which such a strategy has a chance of succeeding. Conservatives have their opening not because the country has moved far to the right but courtesy of economic discontent, partisan polarization and the right’s success in defining Obama as standing well to the left of where he actually does.

The Obama campaign is trying to disrupt this narrative on multiple fronts. Why did Obama respond so quickly and forcefully to Romney’s effort to use the president’s “you didn’t build that” quotation as a way of casting him as an enemy of small business? It’s not that the attack was true. In fact, it was blatantly false, given that in the same speech Obama praised “hard work,” “responsibility” and “individual initiative.”

This election is going to matter.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Major party nominees always move to the center after the primaries, right?

Well.

Usual disclaimers apply



This election is going to matter.

Here's just one example of likely why the desperation -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...l-mandate-tax/

A quarter of Americans expect to pay individual mandate tax

Here’s one factor that might help explain why the health care law’s individual mandate is so unpopular: A full quarter of the population expects to pay the tax for not carrying health care coverage.

That’s what the Kaiser Family Foundation finds in its latest poll on the health care law.
...

What we know about the individual mandate, however, suggests that significantly fewer Americans will end up paying a fine than those who expect to do so.

... 7.3 million people – 2 percent of the population – who will not receive a subsidy and will be required to purchase coverage.

... and just to note that of the 7.3 million, there are likely many of them who are NOT too brain-dead to understand the need for insurance or NOT t-baggers so far entrenched in their extremism that they hold their noses when voting for GOP that are not are sufficiently ideologically pure. It’s easy to see that 2% becoming less than 1% of the population and far from the 25% expectation of the sheeple brainwashed by the Righees’ propaganda.

This is but one example of the many myths of the Right that will be proven false with time. Another is the hyperinflation-around-the-corner Libertarian craziness that has gripped much of the GOP. Admittedly, this latter one is a tough nut when even the 100s of billions spent in the '08 Bailout and '09 Stimulus not making a blip on the inflation radar hasn’t stopped the Rightees still preaching their death-by-inflation as gospel. However, it all adds up eventually to where even our own resident Rightees will need to stop and say, "huh?"

GOP can't let that happen. They've got to get in and shut down Obamacare before it comes to full fruition; they've got to pass some faux "inflation-beating measures” to show they were the ones who protected us from the mythical monster.

They're desperate - and they should be. And, that's not even taking into account the demographic trends. They'll just drown in their own bullshit.... and, they know it.

From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ion/56595240/1

Nor did I ever dream that my cohort would go for such an empty suit as Romney. I suppose they imagine he's safe - and one of them.

If this is anywhere near correct (and how could we assume it's not?), the election could be over in a couple of weeks or days from now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?1343764012

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.



In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.



"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Even I can't believe that Romney didn't pay any federal taxes for a decade, but given that he refuses to release any thing more than two select years, there has to be something at least in the ballpark of this. The speculation is going to turn into a tsunami for him; he's going to have to release more returns.

What's most telling is here's a guy who has essentially been running for the Presidency for a decade and he didn't get his tax situation squared away - either paying something most would have seen as reasonable and/or getting this out of the way years ago like in the GOP primary... with Bush!

This guy is amazingly stupid in politics. Putin would make him a joke on a global scale - our joke. Not so funny.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If this is anywhere near correct (and how could we assume it's not?), the election could be over in a couple of weeks or days from now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?1343764012



Even I can't believe that Romney didn't pay any federal taxes for a decade, but given that he refuses to release any thing more than two select years, there has to be something at least in the ballpark of this. The speculation is going to turn into a tsunami for him; he's going to have to release more returns.

What's most telling is here's a guy who has essentially been running for the Presidency for a decade and he didn't get his tax situation squared away - either paying something most would have seen as reasonable and/or getting this out of the way years ago like in the GOP primary... with Bush!

This guy is amazingly stupid in politics. Putin would make him a joke on a global scale - our joke. Not so funny.

Holy crap! Google this "Harry Reid Romney Tax" under "News"

This is getting a hell of a lot of play. It's being seen as a smackdown by Reid (former boxer).

Romeny's got his defenders ("Reid is playing dirty"), but they're just giving this a lot more play in the media. I'm sure Romney's camp would prefer that this just silently slip away. Not going to happen. Going viral.

New analysis of Romney's tax plan shows he will raise taxes on 95% of us to cut the taxes on the top 5%!

http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...wn-gale-looney

On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform

Ezra Klein's blog has come up with a simple graphic -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-one-chart/



The Red bars show by income level the increase in after-tax income as a result of the first step in Romney's plan of cutting taxes. Not bad, unless your in the lower 20% income group where your take-home pay will go down 1.5% while the top 0.1% income brackets will enjoy having 8.6% increase in their after-tax incomes!

But that's just half the story. The real 'fun' happens when Romney pays for his tax cut. Yes, the top 1% then would see only 4.4% increase in there take-home but 95% of everyone else would actually loss money - a little over 1% of their take home income.

Again, how is this guy electable?

Got to be the "what's the matter with Kansas" sheeple.

Originally Posted by playwrite

New analysis of Romney's tax plan shows he will raise taxes on 95% of us to cut the taxes on the top 5%!

http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...wn-gale-looney



Ezra Klein's blog has come up with a simple graphic -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-one-chart/



The Red bars show by income level the increase in after-tax income as a result of the first step in Romney's plan of cutting taxes. Not bad, unless your in the lower 20% income group where your take-home pay will go down 1.5% while the top 0.1% income brackets will enjoy having 8.6% increase in their after-tax incomes!

But that's just half the story. The real 'fun' happens when Romney pays for his tax cut. Yes, the top 1% then would see only 4.4% increase in there take-home but 95% of everyone else would actually loss money - a little over 1% of their take home income.

Again, how is this guy electable?

Got to be the "what's the matter with Kansas" sheeple.

The figures are abominable, but how many people read, or have easy access to them? (I know. Just hit this link. How many people take or are familiar with this link?)

And once again, Sir "sheeple", I call you down for your elitist contempt of the great mass of people and sentence you to ride a Greyhound bus down the backroads of whatever region you live in - with your mouth shut except for drinking a soda pop.