Thursday, January 31, 2013

Huffington Post Comments, 1/31/2013

I am awaiting some replies, but in the meantime take note of the following comments to this article.

The following are parts of some comments:

The Mask
If Bush had been treated as badly by the left as Obama has been by the right, you can rest assured that martial law would have been declared by 2002 for all America because "you're either for us or against us"
We didn't go after Bush personally, we went after his policies.
Two comments earlier:

The only sixty books Bush might have read, would have been picture books. The man is a dolt.
Three comments after Michmod:

BJW Nashe
Bush read over sixty books in 2006? I didn't know Dr. Seuss wrote that many...  
How do they write this stuff and keep a straight face?

"We didn't go after Bush personally..." ==> "The man is a dolt."

If you want to get married...

...then it would seem that you should go get a foreigner.

from Roosh's Fourum (and brought to my attention thanks to a tweet by @realmattforney):
Can you imagine what sort of dude resorts to a mail order bride? While I don't think its the case for all of them, I think in 95% of cases you are dealing with highly introverted guys who have always been hopeless with women. They are probably middle income to upper middle income, middle aged to elderly and either cant land a date or have been raped in divorce court already and are throwing the towel in. I also think that a lot of them will punch way above their weight, trying to marry women far too young or incredibly good looking women while they have very little going for them looks wise. I also think that many don't understand the cultures of these women.

So here we have average looking guys with moderate incomes and no ability with women who are still able not only marry hotter women than they would get at home, they are younger, more feminine and traditional too.

The biggest farce of all? 80% of these arrangements are actually working according to statistics, while the rest of their countrymen will see 50% of their marriages end in divorce and family court rape

Now I know there are guys who marry foreign women that end up taking them to the cleaners. The thing is, these guys are being taken to the cleaners far less often than they would be if they married local chicks. And if they did take a chance on a local chick, she would be no where near what the foreign wife was in quality either.

I am also willing to bet that many of these "foreign women" who everyone tells horror stories about just so happen to be women who immigrated here when young or were sent to study in western universities and colleges, and after a few years in our indoctrination camps they come out the other end far more fucked up than when they went in. They are not a complete representation of foreign women because their exposure to our culture is far deeper than someone who moved and lived there for a long period of time.

And I can say, based on what I see with Australian men who are marrying foreign women in droves now, particularly Asian, that the divorce rates are far lower, despite major age differences between couples.
Read all of it and see if you're not convinced that marring a foreigner isn't the way to go.

An 80% success rate sounds a whole lot better than 50%.  Especially if the girl in question knows how to dress herself.

Comment from the article at Return of Kings:
Well even if it is a scam…at least you get a pretty girl with a good attitude in the scam.

In America it’s a scam too…but it’s with an overweight, slutty, you go grrl, independent woman.

A Chinese Guy Comes Close to the Truth

Read this and appreciate how close he comes to the red pill, while maintaining the blue one.

He starts by almost getting at the truth, but hold on to the baloney later.

I just came back from abroad, and I keep hearing my Chinese male compatriots in China say our Chinese girls are relatively materialistic, practical [vs. idealistic], and gold-digging, that its impossible for men without an apartment/house to get married, that one can’t find a girlfriend if they don’t spend money, that its easy to be dumped just for failing to give gifts to one’s girlfriend every holiday etc. etc. etc.

But frankly speaking, I have no serious objections to this, because I think actually all women throughout the world are materialistic. After all, who doesn’t like rich and capable men? American women are the same, European women are the same, they all favor rich men, and it’s always easy for generous men to find girlfriends.

But what left me flabbergasted was that I also know a lot of laowai who are fooling around in China and they tell me China has a lot of “free girls” who don’t want any money and only want to go to bed with them, who want to marry laowai even if it means paying instead of getting money [to the foreigner], and who will take even the poor, the old, the fat, the disabled, as long as they’re laowai.

For laowai in China, the success rate for getting girls is around 50-100 times higher than those of local men, and the women that our compatriots can spend thousands or tens of thousands on but can’t get laowai can get with just a cup of coffee. Many of male compatriots are extremely angry over this, so let me share the ways laowai pick up girls and the reasons they succeed easily. You guys should also find your own shortcomings, and not just blindly complain.

Want to know how to get rich?  Copy and paste, and arrange, various posts from Roosh and Heartsie turn it into a book and go to China and sell it.  You could probably work out a deal with those two for their info.

The Chinese have limited internet access and the guys would probably kill to know what game is.

Someone who wants to publish and print a pile of that book could certainly sell them in China, if he knew how.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Breaking News: The Media Is Biased!

Senator Menendez (D-NJ) has apparently been enjoying the company of prostitutes.
link 1

link 2

Here's a time sensitive case for which you can prove a liberal media bias.

Find articles on this story on liberal friendly websites.

Do any of the following have an article on this story (at the time of my writing this):

NBC - couldn't find one
CNN -  nope
CBS - here
Huffington Post - here
Slate - nope
Politico - here

All of them seem to like stories about gun control.  Each of those has many articles on gun control, and maybe one on Sen. Menendez.

If only guns were banned...

...then things like this would not happen.

Eleven Questions

The Whited Sepulchre linked to, and answered eleven questions on politics and liberty from Counting Cats.

Because I find the questions interesting and becasue I have my own blog, I'm going to answer the questions too.

Tim @ Spootville hunts, fishes, reads, and is a practical, logical sort of guy.

1. Who was the greatest political leader in the Western world?

William Henry Harrison was president for thirty days and then died before doing anything presidential.   No new taxes, no infringement upon our liberty, no bad stuff at all!

2. If you could change, introduce or abolish one law, what would it be?

Change: modify the second amendment to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Introduce: a balanced budget requirement

Abolish: I'd prefer all laws to be abolished rather than continue with what we have.  If I could pick only one then I'd like to abolish the practice of income tax withholding.  Everyone who pays income taxes should have to write their income tax check each year, preferably the day before the election.

3. What advice would you give to a sixteen year-old today?

First decide what you are going to do for a job.  Then try and get an entry level job in a company that does that.  Only go to a four year college if absolutely necessary.

Also, read Roosh, and do what he says.

4. Who do you most admire?

My Heroes

5. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your country?

Wrong question.  

Correct question: which country will you be moving to?  Or will you stay and help pick up the pieces?

6. If you think voting for establishment parties changes little or nothing, what is the one thing we can do as individuals to cause real change?

Live your life the way you want, avoid dealing with laws when you can.  Stop getting news from the traditional news sources.  Stop paying attention to the media.  Pay as little to the government as possibly you can.  Try to show as many people as possible that the government is always incompetent, and encourage them to avoid the government as much as is possible.

7. When will we finally say good-bye to the state?

Never.  Although perhaps many of us may reach a point where we generally ignore the laws of the government because they are too ineffectual, and incompetent, to enforce them.

8. Should free people have the right to keep and bear arms openly or covertly without government permission, sanction or registration?

Why not?

9. What annoys you most about current politics?

I find it inconceivable that we don't have a balanced budget every year.   Even if all of policies are opposed to what I want, they should at least be competent enough to have a balanced budget every year.  We aren't really giving Keynesism/ Socialism /Communism / Progressivism/ Feminism / Leftism a fair shot because the people in government are to incapable of making the numbers add up.  Whatever your political persuasion, you should agree that you should earn more than you spend.  

The argument should be freedom with a balanced budget or socialism with a balanced budget.  Not socialism and huge deficits every year versus slightly less of each.

I also don't like how words don't often mean the same things twice.

10. Gold standard or fiat currency and interest rate control?

I like The Whited Sepulchure's answer:

"That question presupposes a false dichotomy.  We could have a gold standard, and a currency issued by a neighborhood bank, and another currency issued by Wal-Mart, and dozens of others.  Let a thousand currencies bloom!!  Anyone foolish enough to want a fiat currency could continue trading with his fiat currency and saving his fiat currency.  But one day he would look in his wallet and realize that his dollars are made of paper."

11. Do we have an obligation to help the poor?         

Personally: maybe

Through the government: NO.  

The Democrats' Plan for Balancing the Budget

I am getting weary of talking about the national debt and deficit.  But until these issues are resolved we will have political, economical, and other issues affecting our everyday lives.

We already know that the democrats do not concern themselves with these problems.

They do, however, take the time to criticize any attempt made by republicans to fix these problems.  Anything you hear from the left about the budget will, almost invariably, be about how bad a particular republican budget balancing plan is.  This may be a good political strategy for them.  They can blame republicans for wanting to cut spending and they present nothing for the republicans to attack.

When I attempted to determine what the democrats' plan to balance the budget is, the only replies that approximated a response were:
  • "I already answered that."
  • "Tax the Rich of course!"
Despite the lack of helpfulness from those commenters, we know that whenever the democrats admit to what they want to do to balance the budget, they will point out that they want to tax the rich, and cut military spending.

Let's try their plan and see what those numbers look like.

The White House has a page to list the "Historical Tables" for the financial information of the United States. 

Once again I will be using 2011 numbers because that is the most recent year for which the numbers are not estimates.

Table 1.1 shows the total revenues and expenditures (rounded to the nearest billion):
2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion
Now I will subtract military spending from these numbers, and then divide the remainder of the deficit by the number of "the rich" to see how much they each need to pay as their "fair share."  Note that the amount "the rich"needs to pay will be in addition to what they already pay to the government (their current payments are already included in the "total receipts").

I have never heard how much the democrats would like to cut military spending. 
Let's see what the numbers look like if we cut 100% of military spending.

2011 spending on "National Defense" (table 3.1): $705 billion

I considered removing all "veteran's benefits" too, but I decided that while the democrats don't like the military, they do not oppose paying for their benefits. ($127 billion, incidentally)

Subtract all military spending from the total budget and we get the following numbers:
2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays (minus national defense): $2,898 billion
2011 total deficit (minus national defense): $595 billion
By ending military spending we have halved the deficit.  (A fine point to note next time you talk to a democrat who wants to cut military spending: By eliminating 100% of military spending the federal deficit would still be about $200 billion more than the largest deficit under President Bush, which included military spending. table 1.1)

Now let's divide the amount of the new deficit amongst "the rich" and see how big of an additional check they need to pay each year in order to balance the budget.

According to the U.S. Census Clock (at the time of this writing) the U.S. has a population of: 315,230,903

How many of us are "the rich"?

We heard from many last year that "the 1%" are the problem.  1% of the U.S. population is 3,152,309 individuals.

Let's divide our new deficit by the number of "the rich":

$595 billion/3,152,309 people = $188,750.53 per each "rich" person.

We can use the democrats' budget plan to balance the budget if we end all military spending and each "rich" person would need to pay $188,750.53 each year in addition to what they already pay in taxes.

(This is, admittedly, a lower number than I expected when I started this post.)

How much does someone in the 1% earn each year?

According to this liberal sounding website (I couldn't find the IRS data.), the annual income needed to hit the following top percent marks are (in 2010):
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
According to this Forbes article the average annual income of the top 1% is $717,000.

According to the Tax Foundation (table 8) the top 1% paid 24.01% for an their average tax rate in 2009 (the last year for which they have data).

If the top 1% are going to go along with the democrats' budget balancing plan, then the numbers will work like this.
Average income: $717,000
Less average tax rate @ 24.01%: $172,152
Net current income: $544,848
Less budget balancing number: $188,750
Net income: $356,098
If we eliminate 100% of military spending and charge the top 1% with balancing the budget, then we will be effectively taxing their income at 50%.

The income tax rate in America has been as high as 90% in the past.

It is mathematically possible to balance the budget using the democrats' plan.

Could such a plan work in practice?

Even I, who despises the government and is very open to the idea of anarcho-capitalism, can appreciate that the government [maybe, perhaps, if you insist...] could exist with some merit to do some things.  That list of things are (thanks to Ayn Rand):
  1. Protect citizens from foreigners
  2. Protect citizens from each other
  3. Provide a means of deciding disputes (courts)
If we eliminate national defense, like it seems democrats want, then how would we achive government objective number 1?

I propose a two part national defense plan:
  1. Require all adult men (and now women, it seems) to own a fully automatic rifle, in good condition, and with it be able to hit a specified target with it (Note that fully automatics have been illegal since 1934.)
  2. Maintain approximately fifty nuclear ICBMs which shall be pointed at the cities in the countries for whom we conclude are the most threatening
We have heard that during WWII the Japanese considered invading America, but were dissuaded from that idea because many Americans were armed.

Switzerland has been neutral in many wars thanks to its mountainous terrain and the fact that all of its adult citizens own guns and practice with them regularly.

Look at Switzerland, for example. Switzerland has a very relaxed concealed carry law. Half the cantons in the country, you don't need a license, you just carry it. The other half, very easy to get a license.
They've had three big multiple-victim public shootings in the last 12 years. All three of those are in the very few buildings where guns aren't allowed in Switzerland.
Not only would this satify government objective 1 (protect us from foreigners), it would also help with objective 2 (protect us from other citizens).

The citizens should, if this is the plan, should be required to own a fully automatic weapon, not a lesser weapon, because if we do not, then we would be at a considerable disadvantage if we were invaded by armies that are armed with fully automatics.

I propose that if we eliminate the military and arm all adults with fully automatic weapons we could successfully be protected from nearly all foreign threats.

Maintaining a few nuclear ICBMs should be enough deterrence to prevent another country from using a WMD against us.

The costs of making sure that everyone owns a fully automatic rifle in good order, and maintaining nuclear weapons would cost more than $0, so I would then propose cutting the equivalent of the cost of these two items from elsewhere in the budget.  This plan starts with doing everything that the democrats want, so them giving up on a bit of something elsewhere should be reasonable.

The democrats should also be agreeable to cutting in a few other places.  This plan so far only balances the budget.  So if we cut say $200 billion from elsewhere in the government, we could pay down our national debt.

We should also look into the fact that doubling the taxes paid by the rich would cause them to leave and pay less in  taxes then they do now.  Like is happening in CaliforniaAnd in FranceDid I mention that people are leaving California?

My attempt to fully flesh out the democrats' budget plan has a good start, and I will leave it to actual democrats to explain how they plan to force "the rich" to pay an additional $188,000 each.


If that is what the democrats' plan to balance the budget, then they should be advocating it.

Why haven't they stated their goal more clearly and plainly?

If you are a democrat and want to balance the budget by eliminating defense spending and taxing the rich, then feel free to copy my start at fleshing out a plan.  I realize that none of you have attempted to do so elsewhere.


What if by "cutting military spending" the democrats mean to only cut some defense spending?

How much would each member of the top 1% need to pay, on top of what they already do, to balance the budget if we cut only some, say 1/3, of current national defense spending?

Current numbers:
2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion
Numbers after cutting national defense spending by 1/3:
total receipts: $2,303 billion
total outlays: $3,368 billion
total deficits: $1,065 billion
Total deficit divided by 1% of the population:

$1,065 billion / 3,152,309 people = $337,847.59/ person of "the rich"

We could cut 1/3 of military spending and divide the deficit by the number of "the rich" and each of "the rich" would need to pay $337,847 each year in addition to their current taxes in order balance the budget.

Note that the liberal sounding website I linked to earlier says that someone in the top 1% earns at least $380,354 each year, and the new budget balancing payment is added to what they already pay to the government.  This means that the lower end of the top 1% would need to pay about 113% of their annual income to the government in order to balance the budget, if we apply the deficit amount evenly across "the rich".

The average member of the top 1%, earning $717,000 annually, would need to pay about 72% of their annual income to the government.


If somebody who reads this is a democrat, would you mind pointing out which option you prefer?
  1. Eliminate 100% of national defense spending, tax the 1% at 50%, and require all adults to own and know how to operate a fully automatic weapon. (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)
  2. Eliminate 1/3 of national defense spending, and tax the 1% at 72%.  (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)
I notice that whenever we hear about a budget, or other bill, from democrats it includes more government spending.  If we take either budget balancing option above, then that is at current spending levels.  If we spend more, then the rate at which the rich must be taxes will need to go up with the increased spending.  And if we take either option some spending should be cut elsewhere so that we can pay of the national debt.


One last note:

I once favored building a big wall, or fence, across the U.S./ Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration.  But the places that have fences across their boarders are there to keep citizens in.  The Soviet Union had a fence to keep its citizens in.  North Korea has a fence to keep its citizens in.

I now oppose building a boarder fences, because if the top tax rate in America goes to 50% or 72%, then many people will want to get out.  (Me included, even if I'm not one of "the rich.)

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Spring Break 2013 Meetup

I expect to be there, how about you?

Why not an Across the Board Spending Cut?

If there was a budget proposed that would cut spending by, say, 10% from everywhere that the government spends, would that get passed?

I doubt it.

It wouldn't end the deficit.  We'd need to cut all spending bu around 33% to balance the budget, but 10% would be a good start.

What would the arguments against it be?

Its not cutting waste, but punishing "good spending".   This may be true but the democrats and republicans will never agree on which places should be eliminated so an across the board cut would be as fair as it gets.


This idea would reduce Social Security payments.  Also true.  Very unpopular.  And certainly the reason why cutting everything would never be acceptable.

Any way that I look at it, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare need to spend a whole lot less.  Stories about spending, debt, or taxes that do not mention changing radically entitlements are missing the point.

Extremist Politics

Lots of people say that the problem with politics is because there is too much extremism.  Notice that usually when the subject of extremism comes up it is invariably to claim that republicans are extreme.

I disagree.

Partisanship wouldn't be as much of a problem if only both parties were each responsible.  We haven't had any budget in the last 3 years.  And the federal government has had more income than spending in only 8 years since 1950. (table 1)

If we had a balanced budget every year, and we ended all programs that don't work, then I think that many of our political problems would be solved.  Even if we don't like it when the other party gets what they want.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Bobby Jindal 2016

His Thursday speech transcript can be found here.

We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching – even conservative number crunching – is not the answer to our nation’s problems.

We also must face one more cold hard fact – Washington is so dysfunctional that any budget proposal based on fiscal sanity will be deemed ‘not-serious’ by the media, it will fail in the Senate, and it won’t even make it to the President’s desk where it would be vetoed anyway.

In fact, any serious proposal to restrain government growth is immediately deemed ‘not-serious’ in Washington. The Balanced Budget is deemed ‘not-serious’ in Washington.

Term Limits are deemed ‘not-serious’ in Washington. Capping federal growth by tying it to private sector economic growth is deemed ‘not-serious’ in Washington.
The truth is nothing serious is deemed serious in Washington.

When then-Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, he said he was doing so because the national debt was at an outrageous 8 trillion dollars…and he clarified for effect, saying that is “trillion with a T.”

Now President Obama has our national debt over 16 trillion dollars and climbing…larger than our entire economy. And he’s not worried about it in the least.

He calls it progress. You remember his campaign slogan, he says it is “Forward.”
I have news for the President – If Washington’s debt is going forward, America’s economy is going backward.

Instead of worrying about managing government, it’s time for us to address how we can lead America… to a place where she can once again become the land of opportunity, where she can once again become a place of growth and opportunity.
We should put all of our eggs in that basket.

Yes, we certainly do need folks in Washington who will devote themselves to the task of stopping this President from taking America so far off the ledge that we cannot get back.
We must do all we can to stop what is rapidly becoming the bankrupting of our federal government.

Talking to the Left

Every so often I watch an interview with the author of nonfiction books on CSPAN's BookTV website. 

Before I comment on the book talk let me point out a few things as clearly as I can.
  1. The U.S. government's debt is over $16 trillion
  2. The annual budget deficit has been greater than $1 trillion every year since Obama was first elected (Table 1)
  3. We would need to double all taxes paid in order to balance the budget with revenue increases only
  4. Annual government spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid alone is more than the entire annual revenue of the government
    Obamacare will increase government spending
  5. We have not seen any budget signed into law in over three years
In light of these facts a section of the country formed the Tea Party to say, "let's stop the spending and balance the budget." 

What has happened since 2010, when Tea Party sympathetic congressmen were elected, is:
  • The new congressmen have tried to pass budgets
  • The new congressmen have tried to avoid raising the debt ceiling
  • The new congressmen have proposed changing Social Security
Since 2008 the president has:
Added a new entitlement
Not signed any budget into law
Opposed any spending cuts

What the president, and the left want is more spending and to tax the rich more.  What the republicans want is less spending and lower taxes for everyone.

The house republicans have prevented some of the democrats' legislative goals.  Just like the democrats have prevented some of the republicans' legislative goals.

Now that we've reviewed all of this, let's look at the book in question.

The republicans try to reduce spending and the democrats increase spending.

Guess which of the following the author does:
  1. Accepts that the opposing power will oppose, and proposed a balanced bill idea
  2. Complains that the opposition party is opposing the democratic goals, while claiming that the republicans prefer no new laws is bad when the democrats have clearly presented plans to tax the rich and increase spending
The republicans, at least claim, to want to balance the budget, and the democrats are doing everything in their power to bankrupt us as fast as possible.  And then the democrats continually complain that the republicans don't go along with their ideas to do the exact opposite of what the republicans want.


During the last few months several bloggers put up an ultimatum about wanting people who read their blogs to comment or they would stop blogging.  I found that to be irritating.  But I am curious about what those of you who come here come here for.

Leave a comment and let me know if there is something that I post that you find particularly interesting.  I may, or may, not try and do more of that.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Do Government Run Businesses Work?

Our government has spent much money bailing out General Motors, Chrysler, Wall Street, etc.  And it has given billions to green companies, like Solyndra.  They do this because, they claim, government investment is crucial to innovation. 

They say that windmills won't exist if the government does not subsidize them.  And they're right about that because windmills are not cost efficient and are not an economical way to create energy.  Inside information: a windmill will take 10 years to break even, and will be obsolete in 20.  No non-subsidized companies will accept to wait 10 years before making money.  A private company would not like to wait five years before making a profit.

Are there any examples of subsidized companies working well, or not working at all?

Burt Folsum has some examples:

What examples from U.S. history support the transfer of funds and power from private to government control? In other words, do we have historical precedents for successful government subsidies to private companies? Also, do businesses owned by the federal government perform well?

Let’s review some historical examples. President George Washington experimented with government control when he supported passage of a law to set up a federally funded fur company for the Northwest Territory. President Washington thought this government-run company would help to prevent the British from encroaching on U.S. land, because agents of the British-owned Hudson Bay Company bought furs from the Indians in the Northwest.

Unfortunately, Indians and trappers alike despised the inefficient American company, but John Jacob Astor became a part of the solution. As a new resident of the United States, Astor founded his own private company and successfully bought furs from the Indians, making a fortune in the process. Under President Monroe, the U.S. finally disbanded the nearly bankrupt government company, sold its assets, and allowed the more competent private U.S. companies to do all the nation’s fur trading.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln signed a bill to build the country’s first transcontinental railroad from Omaha, Nebraska, to Sacramento, California. The federal government would do the financing. After granting roughly $60 million in land and another $60 million in federal loans, the bureaucrats were in dismay. The Union Pacific and Central Pacific had done a poor job of construction, and the road went bankrupt several times by the end of the 1800s.

Airplanes were another example. By 1900, some Americans worried that Europeans would invent the airplane and possibly use it to dominate other countries (including the U.S.) militarily. Government support, so the argument went, was therefore essential to stimulate Americans to inventive greatness. Samuel Langley, head of the Smithsonian Institution, received a federal subsidy to continue his research into manned flight. Langley conducted two public experiments with his federal dollars and launched his inventions on the edge of Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, both flights crashed ignominiously into the Potomac River.

Within two weeks after the second launch, the Wright Brothers–two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio–flew the first successful airplane at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, financing the venture with $2,000 of their own money.

For some reason, federal subsidy and control often diminish the chance of an enterprise being successful. In some cases, this occurs because federal officials don’t have the same abilities or incentives as entrepreneurs. Another reason is that federal control equals political control of some kind. What is best for politicians politically is not often what is best for businesses economically. Polticians want to win votes, and they can do so by giving targeted voters benefits while dispersing costs to others.

Asking the right questions focuses attention in the right direction: What federal subsidies and takeovers have ever improved the prosperity or quality of life for most American citizens? Until advocates of government-run businesses can answer that question clearly and with persuasive evidence, we should reject further federal intrusion in the U.S. economy.

A 2nd Term

from here:

Saturday, January 26, 2013

We Sure Brutalize Our Language

A Wisconsin school board candidate appeared to display poor judgment when he posted a picture of himself on Facebook in 2011 brandishing a knife in a Kenosha high school classroom and pointing it towards a girl’s throat, reported.

"Poor judgement"?  How does the idea to do that even enter your head?

Friday, January 25, 2013

Gun "Facts" from the Left are Lies

Guess what!

People who support gun control, like President Obama, are willing to lie and deceve in order to convince you that they are right!

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Apparently the President has claimed, "as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check."

John Lott points out that this "fact" missed a few things, and is a bit out of date.
Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.

The number of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) today is only a fraction of what it was. Today there are only 118,000; while back in 1993 there were over 283,000. Smaller dealers, many operating out of their homes, were forced out by various means, including much higher costs for licenses.

The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.

But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.

If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.

We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.
(disclosure: a close relative had an FFL license in the '80s, he bought and sold guns but had no gun store.  Because of the laws he no longer has the FFL license.)

 A twenty year old 251 person survey of people's perceptions.  Does that sound like truthful "facts and stats"?

If you come across someone who uses this stat, then tell them that Washington D.C. with its near total gun ban sees 292 murders per year.  That was the number of murders in 1995.  Apparently it was 108 last year, but saying 292 per year is a better stat then the 40% number for several reasons.

Saying that Washington D.C. has 292 murders per year is more accurate than claiming that 40% of guns are purchased without background checks because:
  • 292 murders is an actual statistic
  • 40% is a rounded up number from a survey of 251 people
  • the 292 murders stat comes from 1995
  • the 40% stat comes from 1994
292 murders happen per year in Washington D.C. where guns are nearly banned.  My "fact" is newer and has actual data, not a survey of perceptions, supporting it.

Joe Manchin (D-WV):  “How many of you all believe that there is a movement to take away the Second Amendment?”

About half the hands in the room went up. 

Despite his best attempts to reassure them — “I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing” — they remained skeptical.

In other news:  "On Thursday a group of Democratic senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw more than 100 different assault weapons, setting up what promises to be a fraught and divisive debate over gun control in Congress in the coming weeks."

h/t: Vox Day


There is no plan to ban guns coming!

40% of guns are acquired without a background check!

Mass shootings all occur in gun free zones!

Stop opposing sensible gun control!

Cutting Spending Works

I pointed out yesterday that California raised taxes on the left, then watched the rich leave and their tax revenues decrease.

Here in Wisconsin we elected a governor in 2010 that wanted to balance the budget by cutting spending.


Wisconsin budget deficit when Scott Walker took office: $3 billion
Projected budget surplus: $484 million

source, h/t: Althouse

Thanks to the new numbers our politicians are discussing how much we can cut taxes, and how much more can go to schools.
The surplus this time makes it easier for Walker and Republicans to follow through on their promises to cut income taxes while also increasing spending on K-12 schools.

Walker said Tuesday that he thought state income taxes could be cut by about $340 million, and that it would amount to a roughly $200 savings per household over the next two fiscal years. Details were still being worked out, he said.

Walker said in a statement Thursday that the larger surplus "will allow hardworking Wisconsin taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn because I plan to move forward with an income tax cut targeting the middle class."

Democrats have been generally supportive of an income tax cut, as long as it's targeted at the middle class. Democratic state Rep. Jon Richards, a member of the Legislature's budget committee, said the higher surplus provides an opportunity not only for the tax cut but also to bolster funding in a number of areas slashed in Walker's previous budget, including job training and education.
If any of you who read this are liberals/leftists/communists/socialists/democrats/ whatever.., could you tell me how many similar examples of raising taxes doing bad, and cutting spending being good you would need to see before you reconsider your economic beliefs?


Note also that I would like to see either Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, or Scott Walker governor of Wisconsin, be the 2016 republican presidential nominee.

Both have been in the news this week for planning on cutting income taxes, and it sounds like both have a good shot at their plan.

I'd vote for either of them, if they are the presidential, not vice-presidential nominee, but I realize that anything that they could do nationally would be too little, too late.

Its still good news in two states.

Economic Pain is Inevitable

The good news is that I may have come up my my new catchphrase.

from Wipe the Debt From the Books by Wendy Murphy
Even Americans who believe in some level of mandatory taxation should be outraged. The ruling elites have created an inevitable economic catastrophe so that they can fund their political ambitions, line their pockets, and pay off crony capitalists. Nothing, not even stealing the future from children, has made them pause.

The politicians and bureaucrats are snatching the bread out of children’s mouths. Full repudiation is the only way to provide fairness to future generations.

But what of the older generations who “depend” on receiving the interest and principal, or who “need” the entitlements funded by borrowing and taxation? There is no sugarcoating the short-term prospect. There will be immense pain, and it will be terrible to watch. But that pain is inevitable. Entitlements such as Social Security will implode, even if repudiation does not occur.

The entitlements may collapse due to their own Ponzi scheme nature, from the rise of interest rates on the national debt, or from another dynamic. The best outcome is to end the ongoing injustice as soon as possible. To continue an injustice because some people depend upon the proceeds is to enshrine it in perpetuity — or, at least, until it cannot stagger forward one more step.

Repudiation is also one of America’s best chances to reestablish a free and healthy economy. And it means weaning people away from their dependence on the state, especially on entitlements.
I don't know if I like the idea of repudiation, but I'd like whatever is going to happen to happen already.  Let's get it over with already.

Economic pain is inevitable.

You So Would...

Thanks to The Free Northerner's blogroll I found a new (to me) game blog: You So Would...

Once finding it I read the last few months and found it to be the most interesting new (to me) game/ lifestyle blog that I have found in quite a while.

You So Would...

Good stuff.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

I'm not one for schadenfreude, but...

...HA! HA! HA! HA!

After California residents voted to increase taxes via Proposition 30, state revenues have decreased, and residents and businesses are leaving to avoid burdensome taxes and regulations.
- Breitbart

Anti-Gun People are Intentionally Ignorant About Guns

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

- Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby
quote found here

Many of us who like guns are very eager to explain guns to people who don't know.  The fact that the average people don't know anything about guns is the reason ant-gun people oppse "assault weapons."
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"... 

- Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson
With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!

-Jason Ross
Anti-gun people gain their support through ignorance about guns.

The more we tell the public about guns, the more support that we'll have.

This is a good start.
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

Huffington Post Comments, 1/23/2013

This week I ask what the democratic plan to balance the budget is.  Do you suppose that I got an answer?

Rosalee Harris
The GOP IS Ridiculous ergo anything that comes from them will be ridiculous 
You wouldn't be one of those that first claims that everything your opponents say is ridiculous, and then complains about partisanship and gridlock, would you?  

Phed Up
No surprise here...the GOP doesn't believe in math, science or education!  
It sure is fun to insult your political opponents!

BTW, what's the democratic plan to balance the budget?  
Phed Up
Tax the Rich of course!  What's the GOP plan?  Starve Grandma and the poor? 
[my reply was moderated into oblivion, I responded that spending on entitlements is more than total revenues and gave the whitehouse's stats to prove it.  And I noted that you would need to double all taxes paid to balance the budget.]
The thing is, Republicans aren't really serious about these cuts. I mean they say they are, and some of the Tea Party types might even think they are, but they don't generally mean it.

If these guys didn't like it this way, the government would be smaller. There would be less spending.

But when you hear a career politician telling you government is the problem, obviously he's lying. That's like a shoe salesman telling you not to wear shoes.

So what's actually going on?

A long time ago, Republicans decided to flog Democrats as big-spending, big-government types. Largely because they didn't have anything else to complain about. This has gone on for decades, and now it's reached such a pitch that they almost have to do something about it for real.

But they know perfectly well what a disaster it would be if spending actually decreased. They know in addition what would happen to their big defense, energy, and similar contractors.

So instead we're seeing this weird strategic retreat. Republicans will back up a few yards from the precipice, then we'll see this entire kabuki played over again as they pretend-rush to the edge once more.

But they don't intend to go over.  
BTW, what's the democratic plan for balancing the budget?  
As far as I'm aware, they're more interested in getting the economy growing again.  
How do they plan to do that? With more subsidies to green energy companies that proceed to go bankrupt? Or by taxing the only people capable of hiring more?

At least you admit that they are not interested in balancing the budget. 
Why are you asking me these rhetorical questions?  You already have the answers lined up.  
Or rather the angry declamations, which is what passes for an argument in your head.  
So we've come to name calling and insults have we?

"How do the democrats plan to grow the economy," was not rhetorical.

Is there an answer?  
I already answered that.
But it's not even the important question.  It's just the one you think is important.
What matters now is growth.  If we stall the economy, the only way we can pay off our debts is by selling off our patrimony, as in Greece or Ireland.  Those countries may need another thirty years to recover.
We have the largest economy in the world.  We have a massive production capacity, if we choose to put it to work.  If we use the government to create the economic activity we need, as we have often done, or we can pretend it's never been done successfully before.
I'd rather repeat the approach that has led to our success in the past, than try what recently brought several European nations to ruin. 
"I already answered that."


I agree that growth is important, but we've tried stimulus, and we've tried cash for clunkers, and we've tried bailouts for GM, Chrysler and Wall Street. And all we have in return is at least 8% unemployment and pitiful growth.

I'll admit that the democratic policies have worked if by 2016 unemployment is less than, say, 6% and we haven't defaulted.

Will you admit that democratic policies haven't worked if unemployment is still over 7% in 2016 or we default?
 For the thousandth time...We spend 41% of the world's defense expenditures, more than the next 10 countries combined. If we cut the defense budget by 50%, we'd still outspend everyone. We could take those savings, invest them in our decrepit infrastructure, and create new jobs. 
National defense spending is $700 billion per year.

The smallest budget deficit under Obama was in 2010 at $1.293 trillion.

The biggest deficit under W was in 2008 at about $450 billion.

We could eliminate 100% of defense spending and the deficit would still be bigger than any of the deficits under W. tables 1.1 and 3.1 
So what's the democrats plan, they haven't had one in almost 4 years. At least the Republicans are trying. You can't believe the do nothing democrats.  
Why Does it Seem So Hard
Deflection is an interesting way to defend the GOP 
The article in question says the republican plan is bad, so where's the democratic alternative?

Whenever the republicans come up with a plan the democrats attack it and insult republicans for not spending more.

Where is the democratic plan? At least the republicans have a plan.  
Why Does it Seem So Hard
The articvle is about the GOP planning to do in 10 years what Ryan could not do in 30 years.

An article about the DEMs would be about the DEMs. Or is it important that you ignore the topic and change it to discuss another point?

I suppose it must be really difficult to defend the GOP 'fantasy' and so what else can you do but deflect?

I did notice you suggested that a plan that is mathematically impossible is still a plan but I would hardly call that a compelling endorsement of an impossibility.

BTW are you suggesting that Ryan's budget(s) that increase taxes on the middle class, give tax cuts to the wealthy and increase the debt is something the DEMs would consider? The Senate told the House before they submitted those budgets that it would not pass. But the GOP was more than happy to spend tax payer money so that you would have a nice talking point today! THank the GOP for spending the tax payer money just so you could make your point today.  
[copy and paste error: I cannot find the page again, I'm not getting email notifications about comment replies, and many of mine were moderated into oblivion.]


I remember why I stopped doing this for a while: copy there, paste here, copy, paste, copy, paste, accidentally close a window, lose work, swear, wait for my comments to be moderated, notice that many disappear despite them being the same as those above, etc.


In any case, I asked about a half dozen people what the democratic plan to balance the budget and the only things approximating a response were:

"I already answered that." and "Tax the Rich of course!"

Does anyone have any idea about what the democratic plan is?

If we only tax the rich more, then the rate at which they must be taxed to balance the budget is greater than 100%.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Long Term Plans

I read the following sentence in an article titles Deficit Dreams, and then quit reading it.

"America’s massive deficits and debt are terribly inconvenient for the Left."

If this is the case, then were are the liberal solutions to the debt and deficit?  Can you find one article that outlines what liberals' plan is, or what a liberal things the plan should be?

Liberal websites, where such an article might be found (if it exists):
Find me an article that outlines a democratic plan to balance the budget, or stop repeatedly claiming that the debt and deficit is something that the democrats are concerned about.  

(There are articles on those websites that criticize republican ideas about the deficit, but zero about democratic ideas.)

Liberals and democrats don't care about the debt and deficit.  Some, like Paul Krugman and Barack Obama, advocate making it bigger with more stimulus spending.  They are not in the least concerned with the debt and deficit.

I think that I understand why democratic politicians and some big businesses, who get rich while in Washington and lobbying in Washington, support no action to reduce the debt or deficit.   But to those of you average democratic voters, what do you think is going to happen in the long term with trillion dollar deficits and a debt that is over $16 trillion?  Can you explain how anything good is going to happen?  Do you think that trillion dollar deficits can continue forever?  You must support annual trillion dollar budget deficits (and no budget at all) because Obama was re-elected and the deficit has not been less than $1 trillion in any year that he has been president (highest budget deficit was around $400 billion under W). table 1

Would one of you explain your long term economic plan to me?  Because I don't understand how spending one and a half times federal revenue each year will turn out well.

One last question: who's going to care about the racial disposition of Obama's cabinet, or gay marriage, or abortion, or healthcare if the government goes bankrupt and nobody has a job?


I did find this article about Republican tax and budget ideas.  My favorite line:

"Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is flirting with a 2016 presidential run, recently proposed scrapping Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes."

Eliminating taxes?

Did I, or did I not, recently point out that Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker are my preferred 2016 Republican presidential candidates?

*Feel free to call me a racist because half of my preferred 2016 republican presidential nominees is a white guy.

Literary Kicks

I've recently added a link to a blog called Literary Kicks.  Its written by a liberal.  I have been wondering if there were any good places of liberal thought that are not full of name calling and insults, and I'm going to look at this one.

I found it thanks to the blog author's book (which I haven't read, and probably never will) Why Ayn Rand is Wrong (and Why It Matters).

Levi Ashur seems like a reasonable liberal, even if he is still, generally, wrong. I too oppose paywalls.

A Brief Summary of The Federal Budget

If we want to balance the budget by raising taxes alone, then we need to double all taxes paid to the federal government.

2011 revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 expenditures: $3,603,061,000,000
2011 budget deficit: $1,326,948,000,000

Federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, and Obamacare alone exceeds all federal revenues.

2011 Total revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 Human resources expenditures (Obamacare yet to come): $2,414,738,000,000

Multiply the amount of money you pay to the government by 1.5 and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and then we could have a responsible balanced budget.

That's a 50/50 raise revenues/ cut spending plan.  Noting short of that will be meaningful.

Prepare for the bills to come due.

BTW, the "fiscal cliff" negotiations did not result in doubling all taxes paid or reducing Social Security, etc spending and were therefore meaningless.

Next time the politicians start talking about "fiscal cliffs" or "debt ceilings" understand that they are doing nothing, even if either side got all of what they want.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

To save lives, shrink gun magazines

I found an exceptionally bad article about gun control at the Washington Post.

Let's take a look (his writing is italicized, mine is not):

To save lives, shrink gun magazines
by Jason Ross

With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!

Do you see why the anti gun people invented the term "assault weapon"?

Which of these questions is more likely to get the answer anti-gun people want:
  1. Do you want to ban "assault weapons"?
  2. Do you want to ban deer rifles and duck guns?
The fine writer Philip Caputo, a Vietnam veteran who was shot by an AK-47 while reporting in Lebanon, attested in The Post last month: “I am intimately familiar with what these weapons are designed to do, and that is to kill people.” 

The gun that wounded that guy was designed to kill people, but it didn't.  In any case let's compare his stats to mine:

guns bad: 0 killed, 1 wounded (P. Caputo)
guns good: 734 lived saved in U.S. since 8/30/11

Indeed. But AK-47s and AR-15s are hardly alone in that regard. The technology of firearms owes its existence to man’s desire to kill other men. For many years, combat guns and hunting guns were one and the same. 

...and still are, for the most part.  Hunting weapons have followed the history of the weapons of war.  Since 1934 however, civilians have not been allowed to buy the fully automatic weapons that our military uses.

That changed after World War II with the creation of the assault rifle. But the breakthrough innovation of these guns — their use of medium-powered cartridges — actually makes them less lethal than many other rifles. In fact, their civilian variants typically bear just one indisputably sinister element: high-capacity magazines. 

Look at his link, read it and ask yourself, "what is an 'assault rifle'? What is its definition?  The article gives what it thinks is the first "assault rifle."  But how is it different from any similar gun, for purposes of banning?

"indisputably sinister"  I don't know about that.  If anything is indisputable, then its the fact that having the government ban some, or any guns, is tyranny.

A more aggressive approach is also gaining steam among the left: banning all semiautomatic weapons, the large group to which assault-style rifles belong. This century-old technology allows guns to be cocked only once, thereafter firing a single shot for every pull of the trigger. Is such rapid-fire capability too great to allow in civilian hands? Perhaps. But, then, what should we do about manually actuated weapons that shoot almost as fast? Remington offers a black, pump-action .223-caliber rifle to police departments. Anyone looking at it — or being shot at by it — could be excused for mistaking it for an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. 

There are two options when considering banning all semi automatics.
  1. Grandfather those already owned past the law (those that already exist will stay legal)
  2. Ban all ownership
The problem with #1 is: If we already have several tens of millions (at least) semi automatics, then what would banning future production do? Guns last indefinitely.

The problem with #2 is that many people may keep their banned guns.  The U.S. already has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country, what good will it do to create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens?

The difference in the firing rate between a pump and a semi-automatic is negligible.  Therefore, a criminal can use a different gun, with essentially the same firepower, and still own a legal gun.  So what good is a semi-automatic ban?

All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.

Unfortunately, by targeting guns’ form rather than their function, the efficacy of type-specific gun bans is questionable. The enforcement prospects, though, are downright frightening. There are probably at least 3 million assault-style weapons in American hands. As for semiautomatics in general — shotguns, rifles, pistols — the number is many times that. Buying them back would cost billions. Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies. 

"Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies."


I propose that anyone who supports gun control be personally responsible for confiscating any banned gun from their neighbors.

The country needs a solution that limits the killing power of civilian weapons across the board — regardless of action type — while keeping enforcement costs and social unrest to a minimum. Luckily, we already have it: magazine control. 
In the "probably useless" realm is a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which was part of the 1994 assault weapons ban. A mass shooter can overcome the restriction by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns—as many of them do anyway. The notion that an attacker can be subdued when he stops to reload works better in movies than in real life, where it is virtually unknown.

The magazine is the part of the gun that holds the cartridges. The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun holds 17 rounds. Assault-weapon magazines typically carry 30. Those magazines drop out at the press of a button, to be replaced by fresh ones. 

I like how he writes: "The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun" as if he knew what that meant.

If there is such thing as a "standard magazine for a semi automatic handgun," then it is known as a Colt 1911.

Why do you suppose he picked his idea of a standard 9mm handgun rather than a standard semiautomatic handgun?  My guess is that he is armed with the information from a 5min google search.

BTW, some magazines are removed from the gun by a button and some by use of a lever.

Why would anyone care that "Those magazines drop out at the press of a button,"?  My guess remains: he has a small amount of information and he wants to show it off.

Let’s replace them with smaller ones. Lower-capacity magazines will fundamentally transform the character of these guns. Put a five-round magazine in an AR-15 and you no longer have an assault-style weapon. You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle. A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter, capable of holding a burglar at bay but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage
"You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle."  For some reason, he sure wants to show that he has a very small amount of gun knowledge.

"A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter" Glocks aren't made out of plastic.  Even if a few parts are, then parts that do the work (the barrel, etc) are made out of metal.  He has a small amount of knowledge and he wants to show it off.

"...but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage." 

"At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre."  - The Truth About Assault Weapons

So he thinks he knows what is best to hold off a burglar, but does not know anything about his own example.

Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected, as they typically hold five rounds or fewer. Some existing guns with firmly attached magazines exceeding the limit could be exempted without creating a loophole for new guns. Others would need to be modified by gunsmiths to remain legal. 

"Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected"  How does he know that?

How nice of him to say, "Go get your gun 'fixed' or go to jail."  That's lots better than just banning all guns outright.

The federal assault-weapons ban passed in the 1990s capped the magazines of some guns but not others — an inevitable result of focusing on gun types rather than gun capabilities. The poor results gave Congress cover to let the law expire in 2004. Today, just six states limit magazines in some way. 

He admits that the last ban did nothing and yet wants to try again.  Maybe we should admire his dedication...before seeing if he wants to personally take our guns.

He doesn't say, and his link doesn't say which those 6 states are.  My guess is Illinois is one of them.  What's Chicago's murder count up to so far this year?  The link does say 6 states and D.C.  Washington D.C. does have the highest murder rate per capita in the country.

Perhaps: magazine size limits = more murders?

The politics of passing such a law are uncertain. What’s clear is that a limit on magazine capacity undercuts the hardest punch of the pro-gun side — “They’re taking away your guns!” — and leaves most hunters unmolested. Can New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) say the same about his proposal to ban assault weapons

He admits that some guns will be banned, but says  banning only some guns isn't banning guns.

And he admits that the new New York gun ban won't be effictive.

In fact, the biggest threat to magazine control might be from my allies in this fight: liberals. Few of my Wilco-listening brethren own guns. Many don’t understand how they work, and some actively loathe them. Will they see magazine control as a half-measure to be spurned? Or will they realize that the most effective assault-weapons law might be the one that melts down a grand total of zero assault weapons?

According to the government how effective was the last magazine band?

2004 Department of Justice study

"[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."

That's what the government said.  When he says "most effective" what is he basing that on?

According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year.

But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

This represents a decrease in murders from so-called assault weapons compared to the decade when the AWB was in effect, even though such weapons are more common today.

Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
- The Truth about Assault Weapons
Bring on the hammer/club/knife bans.