It may be better for you as an individual to have a gun to defend your interests, but if those rules apply to everyone then the likelihood of you encountering another actor with a gun also increases, which is worse for society as a whole.
to me that's the rub - one person may seem reasonable but as a group people are not reasonable. I can trust a person, but I don't trust "people". A normally reasonable person may have a bad day and flip his or her shit. We're better off if that day is not a day when that person has access to automatic weapons.
I'd wager to say that that attacker in Dusseldorf has not spent the entirety of his or her life a raving maniac attacking people. Probably yes this person has had issues - but not everyday of his life. This person has been a part of society - walking their dog, going to the grocery store, interacting with the public. He hasn't been walking around with a big sign on him saying "hey I'm crazy stay away from me", so how would you know if you passed this guy on the street?
It's likely something changed for him recently or even just today. Maybe something happened just in his head or could be with his life circumstances such as a divorce or death or whatever. While it's awful he injured people things could have been much worse. And if you'd met this guy a month ago you would not have been able to tell this would happen.
Switzerland requires all adult's to have a gun, and they have almost no gun crime, furthermore it is common to see Gun's carried if you walk around in Switzerland.
They are extremely pro-gun.
So it is possible, and proven, to have a civilian populace that is armed and to live in an incredibly safe society largely free of Gun Crime.
Furthermore anyone versed in history of totalitarian regimes would know the first thing they do is disarm the civilian populace as much as possible, This is well established in history multiple times.
Have you or anyone here walked around in Switzerland? Do people walk around with automatic weapons?Those are NRA talking points. One of the first things they do in totalitarian regimes is to take over the press as they quash dissent against their fearless leader.
There are exceptions to rules, we've got guns everywhere in the US so why aren't we as safe as Switzerland? And why do places like England and Australia take away guns and they are safe? They're not totalitarian regimes, are they? So exceptions aside I'd argue that it's better to have "people", wild unpredictable people, who will suffer life changing events and stress, without guns which make it so easy to solve a temporary problem with a permanent solution.
Well, are those people in the subway better off? I bet they wish they could have protected themselves.
Well, who says "being able to protect yourself" automatically equates to owning a gun? In this situation, I'm sure martial arts and self-defense training would've come in handy. Maybe we should be encouraging people to join a dojo instead of buy a gun.
Society as a whole would be safer if nobody drove cars too. In fact, I think far more people are killed and injured by cars than firearms. Maybe everybody should stay home just to be safe...
Polls have found that most members of the National Rifle Association support background checks for gun purchases. Yet the GOP consistently opposes even those basic measures, because the GOP and NRA leadership is under the influence not of ordinary gun owners, but gun manufacturers, who profit from gun purchases no matter who is buying them.
Furthermore anyone versed in history of totalitarian regimes would know the first thing they do is disarm the civilian populace as much as possible, This is well established in history multiple times.
Peaceful democratic regimes also have unarmed civilian populations.
North Korea and Japan are tied in terms of gun ownership rates. Yet one is a brutal totalitarian regime that threatens its neighbors with nuclear annihilation constantly, and the other is a peaceful democratic government that hasn't even considered fighting a war in over 70 years.
Taiwan and Afghanistan are also tied. Same goes for Australia and Panama. And Iraq and Finland.
Across the world and throughout history, it is standard practice for both vicious dictatorships and peaceful democracies to place weapons in the hands of the military and the police force--not just anyone.
It takes far more than a lethal weapon to protect the innocent. The average police officer (1) has a clean criminal record, (2) does not suffer from mental illness, and (3) has the combat training necessary to handle a violent criminal without a bloody shootout that's going to get innocent bystanders shot and possibly killed. The same does not apply for the average civilian. In many parts of the U.S., civilians don't even have to pass a simple background check to obtain a firearm, much less undergo training in how to use one.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That good guy is a police officer. Not an accountant, not a fry cook, not a student or a stock broker or a librarian or a mechanic. They're not qualified to do a police officer's job.
Lethal force belongs in the hands of those who know how to use it.
Society as a whole would be safer if nobody drove cars too. In fact, I think far more people are killed and injured by cars than firearms. Maybe everybody should stay home just to be safe...
If I didn't have a car, I couldn't have spent 2,000 hours volunteering at the homeless shelter.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That good guy is a police officer. Not an accountant, not a fry cook, not a student or a stock broker or a librarian or a mechanic. They're not qualified to do a police officer's job.
Incorrect, Civilians can use Gun's just as responsibly as police officers. If the issue is training, then that's a function of how well a society trains its civilians in the use of weapons.
Civilians can be just as good a car driver as taxi drivers. Also your logic doesn't work in the situation of self-defense.
Society as a whole would be safer if nobody drove cars too. In fact, I think far more people are killed and injured by cars than firearms. Maybe everybody should stay home just to be safe...
If I didn't have a car, I couldn't have spent 2,000 hours volunteering at the homeless shelter.
If I didn't have a gun...
If you find no use for gun's, no ones forcing you to use one. Some people do find use for it.
Peaceful democratic regimes also have unarmed civilian populations.
North Korea and Japan are tied in terms of gun ownership rates. Yet one is a brutal totalitarian regime that threatens its neighbors with nuclear annihilation constantly, and the other is a peaceful democratic government that hasn't even considered fighting a war in over 70 years. .
If your arguing that societies with comparable gun ownership (Switzerland for example has high) and yet can be so different in terms of gun crimes.
That means Guns themselves aren't the important factor in gun crime.
What you just described is literally a basic scientific experiment that would prove other factors are more important.
There's the rub. Civilians don't have to take a class or pass a test in order to possess lethal weapons in the U.S.
Yep, i fully support increased training for civilian populace. It is said that Switzerland have extraordinary low gun crime but have higher ownership then Americans, because kids are literally enrolled in Gun training courses.
We should emulate that.
There is a way we can have the 2nd Amendment, protection against tyranny and preserve this for our children, and also lower gun-crime.
The not inconsiderable number of tragic deaths involving children is hard to swallow, especially when the children have shot other people by accident. I'm happy that I don't live somewhere where that's a major issue.
One other aspect is the number of suicides by firearms- according to Harvard you are 85% likely to succeed with a gun vs 3% with drugs.... and I know people who tried and failed at the latter.
There are exceptions to rules, we've got guns everywhere in the US so why aren't we as safe as Switzerland? And why do places like England and Australia take away guns and they are safe? They're not totalitarian regimes, are they? .
Easy to answer.
1.They are largely culturally homogenous of a Western culture 2. They are socio-economically quite well-off so they don't compete for food and shelter 3. The law enforcement is good enough that people can depend on them to stop criminals 4. They train their populace in the use of guns from an early age (Switzerland).
None on of the above has anything to do with the amount of Guns in society, but are far more important factors that affect gun-crime, and violence in general.
This is one of the reasons i think the discussion of those who wish to get rid of guns is shallow, they don't address the far more important underlying factors.
If we addressed those 4 points, you'd basically create an incredibly peaceful society irrespective of whether guns are owned.
There's the rub. Civilians don't have to take a class or pass a test in order to possess lethal weapons in the U.S.
Yep, i fully support increased training for civilian populace. It is said that Switzerland have extraordinary low gun crime but have higher ownership then Americans, because kids are literally enrolled in Gun training courses.
We should emulate that.
There is a way we can have the 2nd Amendment, protection against tyranny and preserve this for our children, and also lower gun-crime.
so you are suggesting that tax money should:
Go public gun training? But not universal health care, or other educational pursuits that can better society?
not that I do not think gun safety training is important, it just wouldn't be high on my priority list when it comes to dividing the loonie.
And do you honestly believe tyranny is still a threat to the American population?
Go public gun training? But not universal health care, or other educational pursuits that can better society?
not that I do not think gun safety training is important, it just wouldn't be high on my priority list when it comes to dividing the loonie.
And do you honestly believe tyranny is still a threat to the American population?
Switzerland has Universal Health Care, lots of Guns, very good gun training and education.
So you can have all of that, you just need good state and Federal management.
Tyranny is always a threat to any country and society, no civilization in history has escaped some form of tyranny.
We currently live off the upswing peaceful period off WW2 and the Depression, peace is not going to last forever, our lifetimes is just a drop in the history of civilizations.
We are simply fortunate and lucky to be born in such a period.
And universal healthcare would be an improvement to what we have. Also the focus on education would be great. I don't see our current administration being very pro-education at all.
The financial and economic situation of America is very tenuous, the big Elephant in the room is the 20 trillion Debt.
Without going into too much detail, essentially both the Bush and Obama administration have postponed an economic contraction (which will be seen as a massive collapse but pave the way for a true recovery) by flooding America with more money (getting money from the Federal Reserve and other places and bailing out banks and War etc).
None of the nice things that other countries enjoy, America can enjoy until an administration can solve the debt problem.
There's never been a debt this massive before, so no one can go back into history and find how to solve it. But the closest thing is really what solved the Great Depression, and that's lower taxes, grow the economy, spur business growth and bring back industries.
Which is exactly what Trump is doing.
There is one possible boom under the Trump administration that probably will occur, and it is to utilize Shale resources that haven't been exploited for massive Energy industry gain.
There has been talks for a few years how once America can use Shale properly, it will cause an energy renaissance for America.
This is the thing that people don't understand, America cannot sustain any welfare program at all until this is solved, All the politicians wanting this and that is meaningless.
And they know it.
America can't afford another war, it cannot afford any welfare program their already buckling under pressure, It can't afford anything but desperately try and jump-start the economy and aggressively tackle the debt.
Once this is under control, we can start creating welfare programs subsidized by the Government.
The debt is a big number, agreed there. I'll get back to that.
I feel the thing that brought us out of the great depression was not those things you mentioned. Instead it was our only four term president FDR. His new deal and government by ABCs put people to work. Spending money on people, giving them jobs so that they could spend money - a trickle up approach - got things rolling. Things obviously took a turn when WW2 happened but what he was doing was working - it did give people hope and a direction and it did revive the USA from the great depression. During this time taxes were not cut or even low on the wealthiest Americans - there was no big push for tax breaks for the wealthy as a result of the great depression.
Coal and natural gas are losers. They affect the environment and are killing us. We should be looking into renewable energy like other modern nations. We should be looking forward - with education, technology, etc instead of looking backwards. Let's make America Great in the future.
The rich and corporations are often the biggest welfare queens by far, billion dollar companies and billionaire's like Trump paying 0 in taxes. They are maintaining in total control of our government due to the supreme court's Citizen's United ruling. Tax share paid by corporations has fallen from 33% to 9% since 1952.
I'm dubious will never be a point where conservatives lawmaker's say, ok well the rich have enough, let's help the middle and poor. That will never happen. They are pushing this ACA repeal without knowing how much the replacement will cost. "No one knows they say" and they aren't waiting for the CBO to issue a ruling either - which is a laugh compared to how much pootering around with investigations, and budget analyses and hearings they required for obamacare.
And there's Trump Billion dollar wall, and tax cuts for the rich built into the Healthcare Plan. Losing money coming and going. So anyway long story short - the party of fiscal conservatism wants to be fiscally responsible - except when it comes to giving the rich tax cuts. Let's say you have two taxpayers one earns 10 million a year and the other makes 10 thousand, Trump (or whoever) says let's give a tax cut of 10% across the board, that number with the 10K would be minuscule, it wouldn't substantially affect his lifestyle. The loss to infrastructure, education, and other government programs by the rich guys taxes would be a huge deal.
Lets get out of foreign wars and quit giving the rich tax breaks and invest in our people - education, healthcare and that debt will go away. And if society is better off then we're all better off. This every man for himself society has us all pitted against each other.
You'll need to go back into history to see FDR's initiatives, apart from glass-Seagall, didn't seem to do much for the economy.
FDR had 'two' deals, the first one was not jobs focused but was around subsidies, and this did nothing for the depression as it persisted through it (unemployment rate etc).
FDR created a 'second' deal specifically because people were getting angry, to try and deal with unemployment by having Governments employ people for public restoration jobs, its unclear what affect this one had apart from the economy slipping back into recession, because WW2 broke out immediately after.
If you want to argue that we should move away from Coal and Natural Gas to renewable energy, thats an interesting perspective, but your already giving up the economic argument because renewable energy is nowhere near as efficient or cost-effective as traditional energy sources.
Corporate Tax in America is around 30%.
Taxing the rich is never a solution to economic problems, its just a knee-jerk reaction. Nor is taxing corporations a good strategy, your just gambling on the Government being able to invest that money in some way better then a company investing it themselves for more jobs.
Also, FDR did raise the taxes on everyone, the greatest source of taxation in the 1930's was not actually the income tax as it is today. Look up what the Excise tax is.
How exactly does owning a rifle protect you from tyranny against a government with tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, aircraft carriers and nuclear bloody weapons?
@vanatos: Park's impeachment started months ago. It was plastered all over the news for ages, even in some American outlets. People, including me, foresaw that it was inevitable; there were massive protests (some of the biggest in South Korean history) and loud calls for her impeachment from the beginning.
First thing: Trump isn't going to do anything about the debt. The #1 rule of Republican Administrations is that the minute they take office, the debt and deficits don't matter. Cheney was so brazen about it he said it in a televised interview. The second part of rule #1 is that the moment a Democrat takes office, the debt immediately becomes a civilization strangling parasite that must be dealt with before all else. This rule changes on a dime and like clockwork.
Second: if anyone who owes a couple rifles or handguns thinks they are going to stop "government tyranny" with the Second Amendment....yeah, good luck with that. Hate to break it to you, but the government has you outgunned by about one trillion to one. You might hold out for about 5 minutes if it ever came down to it if your whole house was an arsenal. Or they could, you know, just blow the damn thing up with a bomb from a plane. But if you think your Colt 45 is what is keeping you from living in tyranny, keep holding on onto that delusion. People have guns because they like guns. Let's at least be honest about this.
You'll need to go back into history to see FDR's initiatives, apart from glass-Seagall, didn't seem to do much for the economy.
Lol....no, not initially. It took the WWII for America to become the juggernaut it is now. To say that FDR's policies didn't do much is nuts. Look at the sidewalk in your neighborhood sometime. It might say WPA 1940-something etched into the concrete. Social Security. The bank holiday that almost certainly saved what little was left of the wealth of the country. He stabilized a country that was on the brink of collapse.
FDR is a true American hero and arguably our greatest President. He's the guy that was so popular they had to make term limits for Presidents.
It's disappointing modern Democrats don't even mention his name, they are too in bed with Wall Street and big business just like the Republicans. Hopefully a tea party of the left, like the Justice Democrats, kick out corporate lackeys in the Democrats and they take over.
I don't see any hints on the Republican side for any policies beneficial to working class people. As far as they can tell, they are winning with pro-big business and pro rich people policy. Town halls should teach them different but they are too stubborn or bought off to change their tune.
Of course immigration is primarily a working class issue. 12+ million people didn't come here illegally to take computer science jobs from Beamdog Developers, they came for labor jobs that unskilled workers in our economy perform. Naturally competing with million of illegally low paid workers is devastating for them. And then there's the trade deals...
Society as a whole would be safer if nobody drove cars too. In fact, I think far more people are killed and injured by cars than firearms. Maybe everybody should stay home just to be safe...
If I didn't have a car, I couldn't have spent 2,000 hours volunteering at the homeless shelter.
If I didn't have a gun...
Of course you could. Your driving a car is not required. You could take a bus or a cab. They also have special licenses that probably require background checks and checks for a a criminal record (not sure about mental health). Clearly they are far more able to safely transport you to your destination than you are. Cars are deadly machines that are best left to the professionals.
FDR is a true American hero and arguably our greatest President. He's the guy that was so popular they had to make term limits for Presidents.
It's disappointing modern Democrats don't even mention his name, they are too in bed with Wall Street and big business just like the Republicans. Hopefully a tea party of the left, like the Justice Democrats, kick out corporate lackeys in the Democrats and they take over.
I don't see any hints on the Republican side for any policies beneficial to working class people. As far as they can tell, they are winning with pro-big business and pro rich people policy. Town halls should teach them different but they are too stubborn or bought off to change their tune.
His two major black marks are clearly the internment camps for Japanese Americans, and the fact that many of the social programs of the New Deal excluded African-Americans as a political necessity to get them passed. Both were products of the time, but I don't give the Founders a pass on owning slaves, so I can't give my favorite President a pass on these horrible stains either. Regardless, he saved the country and was one of the leaders who won WW2. In my estimation, if Roosevelt had lived even 10 years longer, and it had been him having a relationship with Stalin in the Post-War years instead of Truman, there may not have even been a Cold War.
If you have living grandparents who lived through the war, it's instructive to ask them how the felt about Roosevelt. 3 out of 4 of them would have nothing but unbridled praise and gratitude.
How exactly does owning a rifle protect you from tyranny against a government with tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, aircraft carriers and nuclear bloody weapons?
I'm sure dropping nukes to stop Dave down the street from owning a handgun is an excellent use of resources with no long term consequences.
Also, those two people are the average for the ENTIRE YEAR. Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world in regards to gun violence. The big difference is education and responsibility. The tools are never blame, people make their own decisions.
How exactly does owning a rifle protect you from tyranny against a government with tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, aircraft carriers and nuclear bloody weapons?
I'm sure dropping nukes to stop Dave down the street from owning a handgun is an excellent use of resources with no long term consequences.
Also, those two people are the average for the ENTIRE YEAR. Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world in regards to gun violence. The big difference is education and responsibility. The tools are never blame, people make their own decisions.
Your last sentence is MOSTLY true. However, it is infinitely EASIER to kill people with a gun than say, a knife or a baseball bat, both from a technical standpoint and a psychological one. What would you imagine is easier, simply to wrap your head around and go through with: shooting someone from across the room, or getting up right next to them and stabbing them to death as they struggle to hold onto their life?? I think the answer here is clear. I think people will take action with a gun they would never take if the act of homicide came down to using a different weapon. It is also pretty obvious that if you want to kill ALOT of people, and gun is going to make that far, far easier as well.
So yes, people are of course responsible. But a gun has one purpose, and one purpose only. And that is to kill things.
Comments
I'd wager to say that that attacker in Dusseldorf has not spent the entirety of his or her life a raving maniac attacking people. Probably yes this person has had issues - but not everyday of his life. This person has been a part of society - walking their dog, going to the grocery store, interacting with the public. He hasn't been walking around with a big sign on him saying "hey I'm crazy stay away from me", so how would you know if you passed this guy on the street?
It's likely something changed for him recently or even just today. Maybe something happened just in his head or could be with his life circumstances such as a divorce or death or whatever. While it's awful he injured people things could have been much worse. And if you'd met this guy a month ago you would not have been able to tell this would happen.
There are exceptions to rules, we've got guns everywhere in the US so why aren't we as safe as Switzerland? And why do places like England and Australia take away guns and they are safe? They're not totalitarian regimes, are they? So exceptions aside I'd argue that it's better to have "people", wild unpredictable people, who will suffer life changing events and stress, without guns which make it so easy to solve a temporary problem with a permanent solution.
North Korea and Japan are tied in terms of gun ownership rates. Yet one is a brutal totalitarian regime that threatens its neighbors with nuclear annihilation constantly, and the other is a peaceful democratic government that hasn't even considered fighting a war in over 70 years.
Taiwan and Afghanistan are also tied. Same goes for Australia and Panama. And Iraq and Finland.
Across the world and throughout history, it is standard practice for both vicious dictatorships and peaceful democracies to place weapons in the hands of the military and the police force--not just anyone.
It takes far more than a lethal weapon to protect the innocent. The average police officer (1) has a clean criminal record, (2) does not suffer from mental illness, and (3) has the combat training necessary to handle a violent criminal without a bloody shootout that's going to get innocent bystanders shot and possibly killed. The same does not apply for the average civilian. In many parts of the U.S., civilians don't even have to pass a simple background check to obtain a firearm, much less undergo training in how to use one.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That good guy is a police officer. Not an accountant, not a fry cook, not a student or a stock broker or a librarian or a mechanic. They're not qualified to do a police officer's job.
Lethal force belongs in the hands of those who know how to use it.
If I didn't have a gun...
If the issue is training, then that's a function of how well a society trains its civilians in the use of weapons.
Civilians can be just as good a car driver as taxi drivers.
Also your logic doesn't work in the situation of self-defense. If you find no use for gun's, no ones forcing you to use one.
Some people do find use for it. If your arguing that societies with comparable gun ownership (Switzerland for example has high) and yet can be so different in terms of gun crimes.
That means Guns themselves aren't the important factor in gun crime.
What you just described is literally a basic scientific experiment that would prove other factors are more important.
It is said that Switzerland have extraordinary low gun crime but have higher ownership then Americans, because kids are literally enrolled in Gun training courses.
We should emulate that.
There is a way we can have the 2nd Amendment, protection against tyranny and preserve this for our children, and also lower gun-crime.
One other aspect is the number of suicides by firearms- according to Harvard you are 85% likely to succeed with a gun vs 3% with drugs.... and I know people who tried and failed at the latter.
1.They are largely culturally homogenous of a Western culture
2. They are socio-economically quite well-off so they don't compete for food and shelter
3. The law enforcement is good enough that people can depend on them to stop criminals
4. They train their populace in the use of guns from an early age (Switzerland).
None on of the above has anything to do with the amount of Guns in society, but are far more important factors that affect gun-crime, and violence in general.
This is one of the reasons i think the discussion of those who wish to get rid of guns is shallow, they don't address the far more important underlying factors.
If we addressed those 4 points, you'd basically create an incredibly peaceful society irrespective of whether guns are owned.
Go public gun training? But not universal health care, or other educational pursuits that can better society?
not that I do not think gun safety training is important, it just wouldn't be high on my priority list when it comes to dividing the loonie.
And do you honestly believe tyranny is still a threat to the American population?
So you can have all of that, you just need good state and Federal management.
Tyranny is always a threat to any country and society, no civilization in history has escaped some form of tyranny.
We currently live off the upswing peaceful period off WW2 and the Depression, peace is not going to last forever, our lifetimes is just a drop in the history of civilizations.
We are simply fortunate and lucky to be born in such a period.
And universal healthcare would be an improvement to what we have. Also the focus on education would be great. I don't see our current administration being very pro-education at all.
Without going into too much detail, essentially both the Bush and Obama administration have postponed an economic contraction (which will be seen as a massive collapse but pave the way for a true recovery) by flooding America with more money (getting money from the Federal Reserve and other places and bailing out banks and War etc).
None of the nice things that other countries enjoy, America can enjoy until an administration can solve the debt problem.
There's never been a debt this massive before, so no one can go back into history and find how to solve it.
But the closest thing is really what solved the Great Depression, and that's lower taxes, grow the economy, spur business growth and bring back industries.
Which is exactly what Trump is doing.
There is one possible boom under the Trump administration that probably will occur, and it is to utilize Shale resources that haven't been exploited for massive Energy industry gain.
There has been talks for a few years how once America can use Shale properly, it will cause an energy renaissance for America.
This is the thing that people don't understand, America cannot sustain any welfare program at all until this is solved, All the politicians wanting this and that is meaningless.
And they know it.
America can't afford another war, it cannot afford any welfare program their already buckling under pressure, It can't afford anything but desperately try and jump-start the economy and aggressively tackle the debt.
Once this is under control, we can start creating welfare programs subsidized by the Government.
The debt is a big number, agreed there. I'll get back to that.
I feel the thing that brought us out of the great depression was not those things you mentioned. Instead it was our only four term president FDR. His new deal and government by ABCs put people to work. Spending money on people, giving them jobs so that they could spend money - a trickle up approach - got things rolling.
Things obviously took a turn when WW2 happened but what he was doing was working - it did give people hope and a direction and it did revive the USA from the great depression. During this time taxes were not cut or even low on the wealthiest Americans - there was no big push for tax breaks for the wealthy as a result of the great depression.
Coal and natural gas are losers. They affect the environment and are killing us. We should be looking into renewable energy like other modern nations. We should be looking forward - with education, technology, etc instead of looking backwards. Let's make America Great in the future.
The rich and corporations are often the biggest welfare queens by far, billion dollar companies and billionaire's like Trump paying 0 in taxes. They are maintaining in total control of our government due to the supreme court's Citizen's United ruling. Tax share paid by corporations has fallen from 33% to 9% since 1952.
I'm dubious will never be a point where conservatives lawmaker's say, ok well the rich have enough, let's help the middle and poor. That will never happen. They are pushing this ACA repeal without knowing how much the replacement will cost. "No one knows they say" and they aren't waiting for the CBO to issue a ruling either - which is a laugh compared to how much pootering around with investigations, and budget analyses and hearings they required for obamacare.
And there's Trump Billion dollar wall, and tax cuts for the rich built into the Healthcare Plan. Losing money coming and going. So anyway long story short - the party of fiscal conservatism wants to be fiscally responsible - except when it comes to giving the rich tax cuts. Let's say you have two taxpayers one earns 10 million a year and the other makes 10 thousand, Trump (or whoever) says let's give a tax cut of 10% across the board, that number with the 10K would be minuscule, it wouldn't substantially affect his lifestyle. The loss to infrastructure, education, and other government programs by the rich guys taxes would be a huge deal.
Lets get out of foreign wars and quit giving the rich tax breaks and invest in our people - education, healthcare and that debt will go away. And if society is better off then we're all better off. This every man for himself society has us all pitted against each other.
FDR had 'two' deals, the first one was not jobs focused but was around subsidies, and this did nothing for the depression as it persisted through it (unemployment rate etc).
FDR created a 'second' deal specifically because people were getting angry, to try and deal with unemployment by having Governments employ people for public restoration jobs, its unclear what affect this one had apart from the economy slipping back into recession, because WW2 broke out immediately after.
If you want to argue that we should move away from Coal and Natural Gas to renewable energy, thats an interesting perspective, but your already giving up the economic argument because renewable energy is nowhere near as efficient or cost-effective as traditional energy sources.
Corporate Tax in America is around 30%.
Taxing the rich is never a solution to economic problems, its just a knee-jerk reaction.
Nor is taxing corporations a good strategy, your just gambling on the Government being able to invest that money in some way better then a company investing it themselves for more jobs.
Also, FDR did raise the taxes on everyone, the greatest source of taxation in the 1930's was not actually the income tax as it is today.
Look up what the Excise tax is.
P.S. did someone mention Switzerland
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/world/asia/park-geun-hye-impeached-south-korea.html
This kind of came out of nowhere.
Second: if anyone who owes a couple rifles or handguns thinks they are going to stop "government tyranny" with the Second Amendment....yeah, good luck with that. Hate to break it to you, but the government has you outgunned by about one trillion to one. You might hold out for about 5 minutes if it ever came down to it if your whole house was an arsenal. Or they could, you know, just blow the damn thing up with a bomb from a plane. But if you think your Colt 45 is what is keeping you from living in tyranny, keep holding on onto that delusion. People have guns because they like guns. Let's at least be honest about this.
You'll need to go back into history to see FDR's initiatives, apart from glass-Seagall, didn't seem to do much for the economy.
Lol....no, not initially. It took the WWII for America to become the juggernaut it is now. To say that FDR's policies didn't do much is nuts. Look at the sidewalk in your neighborhood sometime. It might say WPA 1940-something etched into the concrete. Social Security. The bank holiday that almost certainly saved what little was left of the wealth of the country. He stabilized a country that was on the brink of collapse.
It's disappointing modern Democrats don't even mention his name, they are too in bed with Wall Street and big business just like the Republicans. Hopefully a tea party of the left, like the Justice Democrats, kick out corporate lackeys in the Democrats and they take over.
I don't see any hints on the Republican side for any policies beneficial to working class people. As far as they can tell, they are winning with pro-big business and pro rich people policy. Town halls should teach them different but they are too stubborn or bought off to change their tune.
If you have living grandparents who lived through the war, it's instructive to ask them how the felt about Roosevelt. 3 out of 4 of them would have nothing but unbridled praise and gratitude.
Also, those two people are the average for the ENTIRE YEAR. Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world in regards to gun violence. The big difference is education and responsibility. The tools are never blame, people make their own decisions.
So yes, people are of course responsible. But a gun has one purpose, and one purpose only. And that is to kill things.