New Jersey Governor Christie slams NRA ad as "reprehensible"

[philnotfil]

reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-usa-guns-newjersey-idUSBRE90H05C20130118)

"To talk about the president's children or any public officer's children who have - not by their own choice, but by requirement - to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible,"

"I think any of us who are public figures, you see that ad and you cringe," said

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016, said the ad undermines the NRA's credibility at time when gun control has moved to the center of the political debate.

"It's wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate," he said.

[MichiGator2002]

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

[rivergator]

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

[MichiGator2002]

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

No it is perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be in any school. It is perfectly asinine and hypocritical to agree with only one of the prior two statements, which appears to be the case with the administration.

[The_Graygator]

Hilarious that conservatives' children are never off limits to libs though (Palin's, Bachmann's, Ryan's, the Bushes'), but how dare you say anything about a lib's, and in this case, it wasn't even bad at all.

Nobody went overboard outright calling the Obama's children names are trying to character assassinate them like the libs have done to conservatrives' children in the past.

Liberals... love to dish it out, but can't take it.

[rivergator]

Hilarious that conservatives' children are never off limits to libs though (Palin's, Bachmann's, Ryan's, the Bushes'), but how dare you say anything about a lib's, and in this case, it wasn't even bad at all.

Nobody went overboard outright calling the Obama's children names are trying to character assassinate them like the libs have done to conservatrives' children in the past.

Liberals... love to dish it out, but can't take it.

Which political ads did Democrats run that used conservatives' kids?

[g8rjd]

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.

It really isn't. While each of us dearly value our children, when the child of a President, the chief exeutive and commander in chief, is kidnapped or held hostage, it raises an entirely different set of circumstances. Under such a circumstance, the President may no longer be able to act as the President in addressing such an event; she or he may have to relinquish temporarily his powers as President or could be subject to having the cabinet temporarily remove his authority as President. Indeed, the abduction or murder of a sitting President's child or spouse by a foreign or domestic group is the second worst thing that the Secret Service seeks to avoid, passed only by the same thing happening to the President himself or herself. The protection of a sitting President's children or spouse raises a critical national security issue. The death of anyone else's child, while a horrible tragedy, is not analogous.

[sappanama]

right. imagine, a private school full of the children of dignitaries having armed guards. imagine the president's children being protected by armed guards. why, it's just outrageous!!!

So there are classes of children that are more worthy of protection, dignitaries kids in private schools. This also seems to validate that private schools are a good thing, and a necessary thing for the uber class, the new royalty politicians and dignitaries and the wealthy. Glad that was clarified.

[rivergator]

So there are classes of children that are more worthy of protection, dignitaries kids in private schools. This also seems to validate that private schools are a good thing, and a necessary thing for the uber class, the new royalty politicians and dignitaries and the wealthy. Glad that was clarified.

1. They pay for it themselves.
2. They are far more vulnerable to kidnapping that the average American kid.

but I'm pretty sure we covered all this in the other thread which started with the claim that Obama was removing armed guards from all the public schools.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, since the thrust of the proposal -- arming guards or staff/faculty at schools -- was made with no demand of federal funding, or even any direct taxpayer funding (just authorization, really), the entire "who pays" topic is total straw, pure irrelevance. The premise was rejected put of hand and it is clear in context that nobody on the left would be in favor even if Warren Buffett decided to underwrite it himself. And the hypocrisy is complete by blowing off the idea, long before even asking who would pay.

[jimgata]

Christie's recent actions indicate he is only for himself. Despite all his bravado about his governing style and being on the side of the citizens, his actions and comments are about one thing, to get relected.
If Obama doesn't want his kids to be mentioned in any scenario, keep them out of politics.
Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life. Source of protection-GUNS. His motto, don't do as I do do as I say.

[g8rjd]

Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life.

Really? Obama made that law? And, if he did, he did it all by himself? That law, that states that the Secret Service is to protect Presidents, their families and former Presidents and their families wasn't passed by Congress long before Obama was ever elected? And former Presidents and their families don't have the ability to reject Secret Service protection?

Link please.

[MastaG8r]

It would be a more legitimate complaint if the administration wasn't so unapolegetially willing to use children as political props, both on the gun issue and in general. The point about his daughters having armed protection and the armed guards in schools being a laugh off to the administration is factual and valid.I agree with both of those sentences although I will concede that the second one is debatable. The first one in bold type is not.

http://www.worldmag.com/media/images/content/576_576_/obama_gun_control_jone.jpg

How DARE you criticize my executive order! Didn't you see those kids surrounding me while I signed it?? This is all about the kids!*












*But not about my kids though. Nobody better mention them, or else! Let's just say I'm connected. I know a big guy in Jersey who will kneecap you for talking about my kids. No, not Tony Soprano. But close.

[corpgator]

Christie's recent actions indicate he is only for himself. Despite all his bravado about his governing style and being on the side of the citizens, his actions and comments are about one thing, to get relected.
If Obama doesn't want his kids to be mentioned in any scenario, keep them out of politics.
Obama just made law that ex presidents and family are to be protected the rest of their life. Source of protection-GUNS. His motto, don't do as I do do as I say.

Not true. That was a very old law. A new law was passed under Bush limited the protection to 10 years post presidency.

[jimgata]

so obama did change it didn't he?

[g8rjd]

nm...edited after confirming post below.

[rivergator]

Guys, here is what happened:

Presidents used to have lifetime Secret Service protection. In 1997, Congress passed and Clinton signed a law limiting it to 10 years after they left office.
In 2012, Congress unanimously passed a law restoring it to lifetime. That included Bush, who would have otherwise been left out because he was in the gap.
The bill was sponsored by a Republican, there was zero opposition in Congress and Obama signed it.

g8rjd, the link you posted is not up to date.

[g8rjd]

nm

[g8rjd]

so obama did change it didn't he?

No. Congress did. Obama signed the bill after Congress passed it.

[MichiGator2002]

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?

[g8rjd]

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?

Have you considered the flaw in your reasoning may be the quality of individual that you are advocating to patrol your children's school? The Secret Service is outstanding at what they do and those that are charged with protecting the President and his family are the best that the agency has to offer.

However, with an unfunded mandate, who exactly do you think would be hired to handle this job at your local school? Obviously, it's one thing to have a police resource officer who carries a weapon (something I've never been opposed to, as I think it also improves children's comfort level with police officers), but, in the absence of that or if there are insufficient funds for it, do you want volunteers who have nothing else to do during the school day and love the NRA so much that this is the way they think they can support it? I find that prospect scarier than the highly unlikely event of having someone approach my local school with an assault rifle, a death wish, and a desire to take out kids.

[brainstorm]

Have you considered the flaw in your reasoning may be the quality of individual that you are advocating to patrol your children's school? The Secret Service is outstanding at what they do and those that are charged with protecting the President and his family are the best that the agency has to offer.

However, with an unfunded mandate, who exactly do you think would be hired to handle this job at your local school? Obviously, it's one thing to have a police resource officer who carries a weapon (something I've never been opposed to, as I think it also improves children's comfort level with police officers), but, in the absence of that or if there are insufficient funds for it, do you want volunteers who have nothing else to do during the school day and love the NRA so much that this is the way they think they can support it? I find that prospect scarier than the highly unlikely event of having someone approach my local school with an assault rifle, a death wish, and a desire to take out kids.

Your logic applies to all police officers "protecting" the public. If they can do that they can protect schools as well.

And someone trained in police protection and gun skills would be preferable to having no one. Right?

[wgbgator]

Part of the administrations proposal is to further incentivize more school resource officers, or "armed guards" if you will. I'm not sure what the NRA and people defending the add are trying to argue.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, again, "funded or unfunded" is a trigger that all after it will be addressing the idea of how to pay for it as a substitute for the substantive question* of what would actually produce greater actual safety -- armed opposition to criminals, or deeper and entirely tangential regulations on everyone. My question for those who seriously think the latter is better is... why not ask Congress to pass a law against bad things happening?

*By the by, regulations cost money to draft, promulgate and, oh yeah, enforce. There is no "8+ round magazine dissolving powder" or a force field to prevent anyone bringing them in that NY will be able to use. And, FFS, even if there were those would themselves also cost money. All of which appears to be unfunded. The President's quasi-legislation is unfunded; his proposed, hopefully going nowhere actual legislation is also unfunded. So why must only the idea for armed guards come prefinanced?

[g8rjd]

Your logic applies to all police officers "protecting" the public. If they can do that they can protect schools as well.

And someone trained in police protection and gun skills would be preferable to having no one. Right?

Actually, I think if you reread what I wrote, you may see that I made a distinction between a police officer, for whom I do not think there would be an issue, and a volunteer, for whom I would be particularly uncomfortable. If that was ambiguous, my apologies.

[g8rjd]

Well, again, "funded or unfunded" is a trigger that all after it will be addressing the idea of how to pay for it as a substitute for the substantive question* of what would actually produce greater actual safety -- armed opposition to criminals, or deeper and entirely tangential regulations on everyone. My question for those who seriously think the latter is better is... why not ask Congress to pass a law against bad things happening?

*By the by, regulations cost money to draft, promulgate and, oh yeah, enforce. There is no "8+ round magazine dissolving powder" or a force field to prevent anyone bringing them in that NY will be able to use. And, FFS, even if there were those would themselves also cost money. All of which appears to be unfunded. The President's quasi-legislation is unfunded; his proposed, hopefully going nowhere actual legislation is also unfunded. So why must only the idea for armed guards come prefinanced?

My use of unfunded mandate refers to a federal directive without any attached funds to the states to implement it.

HTH.

[gatorman_07732]

Actually, I think if you reread what I wrote, you may see that I made a distinction between a police officer, for whom I do not think there would be an issue, and a volunteer, for whom I would be particularly uncomfortable. If that was ambiguous, my apologies.

Thoughts on a retired police officer from the same community. This is something I think might be a good idea.

[MastaG8r]

Thoughts on a retired police officer from the same community. This is something I think might be a good idea.Great idea. Pay them a little extra in addition to the pension they're already getting and keep them on the state employee health insurance plan, and you'll have no shortage of guys signing up. Get out of the house and flirt with the teachers while keeping an eye on the kids. And the wire from that Secret Service-looking earpiece in one ear actually leads to a radio playing the ballgame, or talk radio. Good duty!

[Minister_of_Information]

The point, clumsy as it was made, is that guns actually have protective utility. In other words guns DO make us safer, at least under certain conditions.

But I think the ad was a bad idea.

[Row6]

The point, clumsy as it was made, is that guns actually have protective utility. In other words guns DO make us safer, at least under certain conditions.

I don't think the issue of contention is the "point" but the vehicle for it, which has backfired in a most embarrassing way.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't think the issue of contention is the "point" but the vehicle for it, which has backfired in a most embarrassing way.

Yes, especially as it appears that the administration had already conceded the point.

[Row6]

Yes, especially as it appears that the administration had already conceded the point.

I don't think "concede" necessarily fits here unless you know there intentions before they announced them.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't think "concede" necessarily fits here unless you know there intentions before they announced them.

Well that's true, but you think they would have pulled the plug once Obama said yes to armed guards in schools.

[Row6]

Well that's true, but you think they would have pulled the plug once Obama said yes to armed guards in schools.

I honestly don't know.

[DaveFla]

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?

Similar to the physicians questioning patients in the other gun thread. Some simply either can't, or outright refuse to accept the disagreement. Instead, they twist it into a debate resembling NOTHING like the original debate.

This ad wasn't about the presidents children. It was about armed guards in a school.

[JerseyGator01]

On fiscal issues, Christie is a phony. It was reported today that NJ's long-term debt went up by $6 BILLION or 9% over last year. He's not paying pension obligations to state workers and it's only getting worse. But the media needs a token Republican.

Christie is just another over-hyped lawyer who hates budgets.

[rpmGator]

Protecting kids from over prescribed mental illness drugs, may be the job for gun owners to check up on doctors.

After all, its their drugs that are creating these acts.

[g8orbill]

I predict by early 2015, Christie becomes a dem and tries to take on hillary for the dem nomination for pres

[fredsanford]

I predict by early 2015, Christie becomes a dem and tries to take on hillary for the dem nomination for pres

Lol

Anyone who isn't a lockstep pub is a Dem in hiding, huh?

Trust me, the Dems don't want him.

[rpmGator]

By 2015 Christie will be his own zip code and will have caused a world wide pasta shortage.

[jimgata]

We have a president now whose mind set is his way or the highway, We certainly don't need another, such as Christie.

[gatorman_07732]

By 2015 Christie will be his own zip code and will have caused a world wide pasta shortage.

:laugh: I can assure you that won't go over well here in Jersey and can potentially cause civil unrest in the Italian community.

[g8orbill]

Lol

Anyone who isn't a lockstep pub is a Dem in hiding, huh?

Trust me, the Dems don't want him.

Just my opinion shab

[Burke]

Christie was the keynote speaker at the Pub convention and spent nearly his entire speech talking about himself instead of Romney.

He used Sandy as an excuse to suck up to Obama.

Now he's committing suicide in the Republican Party nationally by being anti-gun.

He's in a Dem state.

It's just a matter if time until he jumps parties, IMO.

Like Charlie Crist did.

I'm guessing he wants to be a US Senator.

[gatorman_07732]

Christie was the keynote speaker at the Pub convention and spent nearly his entire speech talking about himself instead Romney.

He used Sandy as an excuse to suck up to Obama.

Now he's committing suicide in the Republican Party nationally by being anti-gun.

He's on Dem state.

It's just a matter if time until he jumps parties, IMO.

Like Charlie Crist did.

I can assure you Christie is about Christie and anyone that tries to look further into these bursts of aggression is wasting their time.

[fredsanford]

Christie was the keynote speaker at the Pub convention and spent nearly his entire speech talking about himself instead of Romney.

He used Sandy as an excuse to suck up to Obama.

Now he's committing suicide in the Republican Party nationally by being anti-gun.

He's in a Dem state.

It's just a matter if time until he jumps parties, IMO.

Like Charlie Crist did.

I'm guessing he wants to be a US Senator.

He rightly recognized Romney as an empty suit.

He did his job working with Obama.

This becoming a Dem stuff just shows how much the pubs are like the Borg now.

[gatorman_07732]

He rightly recognized Romney as an empty suit.

He did his job working with Obama.

This becoming a Dem stuff just shows how much the pubs are like the Borg now.

When exactly did he recognize Romney as an empty suit? He spent a considerable amount of time on the campaign trail for him.

[gator996]

Sorry to go back "on topic"...

Does anybody care that its not the "decision" of the POTUS to have armed guards...

...its mandated by law.

Obama didn't choose to have guards protecting his children...

That's why that ad was BS.

:joecool:

[gatorman_07732]

Sorry to go back "on topic"...

Does anybody care that its not the "decision" of the POTUS to have armed guards...

...its mandated by law.

Obama didn't choose to have guards protecting his children...

That's why that ad was BS.

:joecool:

Just like Obama surrounding himself with children signing an executive order was BS.

[gator996]

How was it BS?

[g8orbill]

Your 47%er prez used smart marketing by using the kids to try and tug at heart strings about some BS that it is to save kids- it is about vetting rid of the 2nd amendment a long held libby dream

[gator996]

So you're mad because he was smarter than the NRA?

:laugh:


Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

"It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity."

[gatorman_07732]

How was it BS?

Because there was only one reason for it, and that was to try to insulate himself from criticism. There was nothing in those executive orders that would have prevented the CT shooting or any other sooting for that matter.

[gator996]

Really?

So in your opinion there's nothing that can be done about gun violence besides putting a gun in everyone's hands?

Any banning of anything is going to be congressional...

Obama is funding mental health...giving incentives to schools to hire officers...gathering data on gun violence...

Newsflash...he doesn't have to hide from criticism...most of the country is in agreement with him.


Is there anything in there that you agree with?

[fredsanford]

Your 47%er prez used smart marketing by using the kids to try and tug at heart strings about some BS that it is to save kids- it is about vetting rid of the 2nd amendment a long held libby dream

Do you know what Obama's previous rating was from the Brady Foundation? An F.

[gatorman_07732]

Really?

So in your opinion there's nothing that can be done about gun violence besides putting a gun in everyone's hands?

Any banning of anything is going to be congressional...

Obama is funding mental health...giving incentives to schools to hire officers...gathering data on gun violence...

Newsflash...he doesn't have to hide from criticism...most of the country is in agreement with him.


Is there anything in there that you agree with?

No, Obama's overall ambition is to gather data on law abiding citizens. How can he fund anything on mental health without consent of congress? If there is one thing he can get through congress, it's a mental health initiative.

[gator996]

And that mental health initiative is in his excutive orders...

If you don't collect the data on any topic how can you debate it?


Public safety is a core government issue

[gatorman_07732]

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.


23. Launch a national dialog led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

So this is the big initiative huh? Wow oh wow
Looks like hubabalu to me

[MichiGator2002]

Do you know what Obama's previous rating was from the Brady Foundation? An F.

Doesn't it take actual jackbooted thugs door to door collecting single action antiques to get an "A" though?

[gator996]

No, but aiding & abetting criminal activity with loose secondary market regulations will get you an "A"....

[jimgata]

What obama voted for and said in the past does not neccessatrily reflect his actions of today, because he changes daily. It is unbelievable that one would reference anything he has done or said in the past as relating to today.

[gator996]

What has he said in the past about gun control?

What has he done today which contradicts what he said in the past?

[gatorman_07732]

I don't recall Obama running on any gun control measures because he knew it was a losing issue. You know that whole pesky second amendment he doesn't much care for in the constitution.

[fredsanford]

Doesn't it take actual jackbooted thugs door to door collecting single action antiques to get an "A" though?

I love the smell of paranoid delusion in the morning...

[rpmGator]

Obama isn't on Mt. Rushmore. Using a pen, to get rid of their work, won't make him better than they, it has ruined his last four years by making damn sure, he will be fightng this one battle the entire time he has left in office. A battle he won't win.

It is the act that will turn the whitehouse back over to the R's. Happy now.

[gator996]

You think this is a bigger issue than the economy?

Wasn't that supposed to be the issue to turn the whitehouse back over to the republican party? :laugh:

Immigration reform will be passed, hopefully tax reform will be attempted, obamacare will be implemented, Afghanistan will be exited...lots of things will be occuring in Obama's 2nd term...gun control will not be the #1 issue

Or a distraction to getting the rest of his agenda completed.

[gatorman_07732]

You think this is a bigger issue than the economy?

Wasn't that supposed to be the issue to turn the whitehouse back over to the republican party? :laugh:

Immigration reform will be passed, hopefully tax reform will be attempted, obamacare will be implemented, Afghanistan will be exited...lots of things will be occuring in Obama's 2nd term...gun control will not be the #1 issue

Or a distraction to getting the rest of his agenda completed.

tax reform? Please explain

[gator996]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100274565/Obama_Says_Tax_Rate_Cut_for_Wealthy_Possible

"And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform, we look at what loopholes and deduction both Democrats and Republicans are willing to close, and it's possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point."

The remarks, which reiterated a position that White House officials have expressed privately, is designed to give Republicans an opportunity to lower rates for the rich, but only after they rise at year's end when Bush-era tax cuts expire.

[gator996]

http://taxes.about.com/od/tax-reform/qt/Barack-Obama-Tax-Proposals.htm

Consider tax reform after the election.

Obama may be willing to consider comprehensive tax reform after the election. In the same statement of June 9th, 2012, Obama proposed, "And then next year, once the election is over, things have calmed down a little bit, based on what the American people have said and how they've spoken during that election, we'll be in a good position to decide how to reform our entire tax code in a simple way that lowers rates and helps our economy grow, and brings down our deficit."

[gator996]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-30/business/35585895_1_tax-rates-freeze-taxes-cuts-for-high-earners

Obama seeks Aug. 1 deadline for tax reform

President Obama is seeking an Aug. 1 deadline for overhauling the tax code and making changes to expensive federal health programs, the final pieces of what the administration conceives as a far-reaching plan to rein in the national debt, senior administration officials said Friday.

The proposed deadline was included in a plan Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner delivered to Capitol Hill on Thursday as Obama’s opening bid in talks with congressional Republicans to avert the year-end “fiscal cliff.”

[jimgata]

Obama's far reaching plan is to reduce the amount of some arbitrary increase in spending and call it a tax cut and that it lowers the debt. The debt will continue to increase as the only cuts will be in the increase of future spending. Spending will still increase at a rapid rate.To believe anything else is foolish.
What do they need to do with health care? Wasn.t Obamacare the end all of all health care problems?
He tax reform plan is to tax the rich. That's it.

[rpmGator]

When the economy isn't all that good, and you do something stupid on the second ammendment, I doubt you have a fall back plan.

Temporary occupants of the Whitehouse, do not trump the constitution.

[gator996]

Obama's far reaching plan is to reduce the amount of some arbitrary increase in spending and call it a tax cut and that it lowers the debt. The debt will continue to increase as the only cuts will be in the increase of future spending. Spending will still increase at a rapid rate.To believe anything else is foolish.
What do they need to do with health care? Wasn.t Obamacare the end all of all health care problems?
He tax reform plan is to tax the rich. That's it.


OK...despite public comments to the contrary, attempts to set a date-specific deadline for tax reform...Obama is lying, right?

And the republican party should be believed about tax reform why?

About spending, why?


On your other "points"....

What do they need to do in healthcare?

Newsflash...Obamacare doesn't take effect fully until 2014...there's plenty to implement


Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

[gatorman_07732]

http://taxes.about.com/od/tax-reform/qt/Barack-Obama-Tax-Proposals.htm

Consider tax reform after the election.

Obama may be willing to consider comprehensive tax reform after the election. In the same statement of June 9th, 2012, Obama proposed, "And then next year, once the election is over, things have calmed down a little bit, based on what the American people have said and how they've spoken during that election, we'll be in a good position to decide how to reform our entire tax code in a simple way that lowers rates and helps our economy grow, and brings down our deficit."

Yeah, I remember this now and I just never thought about this a tax reform. I think the intention here is to hit the same people he did with the tax increase

[gator996]

Obama's comment was "And then next year, [2013], we'll be in a good position to decide how to reform our entire tax code ..."


And yet, you never thought about this a[s] a tax reform?

Actually, go out an read a little bit...

The tax reform Obama is talking about is closing loopholes and broadening the tax base with the option of actually lowering the top tax brackets along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

""And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform, we look at what loopholes and deduction both Democrats and Republicans are willing to close, and it's possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point."

The remarks, which reiterated a position that White House officials have expressed privately, is designed to give Republicans an opportunity to lower rates for the rich, but only after they rise at year's end when Bush-era tax cuts expire.



But I know, its better just keep your head in the sand... :joecool:

[gatorman_07732]

Obama's comment was "And then next year, [2013], we'll be in a good position to decide how to reform our entire tax code ..."


And yet, you never thought about this a[s] a tax reform?

Actually, go out an read a little bit...

The tax reform Obama is talking about is closing loopholes and broadening the tax base with the option of actually lowering the top tax brackets along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

""And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform, we look at what loopholes and deduction both Democrats and Republicans are willing to close, and it's possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point."

The remarks, which reiterated a position that White House officials have expressed privately, is designed to give Republicans an opportunity to lower rates for the rich, but only after they rise at year's end when Bush-era tax cuts expire.



But I know, its better just keep your head in the sand... :joecool:

He's not going to reform the entire tax code. He is going to sock it to the upper income people by eliminating loopholes, which is what Paul Ryan wanted to do in the first place.

[MichiGator2002]

Oh, I have no doubt Obama would love to reform our tax system. I mean, after all, we don't have any direct taxes on wealth, we don't have a threshold at which a 100% rate kicks in, etc. He would probably love to reform our tax system. Obamacare style Roberts-doctrine "taxes" on gun ownership, etc, who knows.

[Dreamliner]

Lol

Anyone who isn't a lockstep pub is a Dem in hiding, huh?

Trust me, the Dems don't want him.

The way it's looking they're going to be answering to him come 2016.

[jimgata]

In his mind it is all about him. He has gone from hero, in many conservatices minds, to being another self serving politician. His big talk and my way or the highway attitude is getting old.