[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I’ll need to verify this, but the DailyKos article beatrix cited indicated that the Bushmaster rifle was in the car at the time of the shooting, which means the shootings were carried out with a Glock and Sig-Sauer semi-automatic pistol.

My point is this: The Bushmaster would have been banned under the Clinton-era legislation, but the pistols wouldn’t (they would, however, have been limited to 10rd magazines). As a former soldier, SK, you’re well aware of how much damage you can inflict with a handgun and how quickly magazines can be exchanged, even reduced capacity 10rd magazines.

For that matter, a 12ga pump shotgun is an equally devastating weapon close-in. You can walk into Big5 and buy a Mossberg or Remington over the counter.

You don’t need a Bushmaster, or an AK, to commit this kind of horrific act, which leaves you with a complete gun ban as the answer.[/quote]

I was watching the news much of the day on Friday, and heard that same thing repeated during the day, that the Bushmaster was found in the car. But the ME said that every body he autopsied was shot by the long gun. (I saw the interview, it wasn’t someone reporting that he said it.) And all slugs recovered from all the victims were all .223s. All with more than a single wound, the 7 he performed, all had 3-11 slugs.

Use of legal pistols only may not have prevented it from happening. But it may have reduced the number of casualties.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV]Wouldn’t it be nice if there was something….anything…that could be done to reduce the likelihood of these kinds of events happening. I can’t imagine what it might be. But whatever it might be, we can’t ever dare mention the elephant in the room.[/quote]

SK: I’m presuming you mean gun control? How would a gun ban have prevented this? The .223 Bushmaster he used was a pre-ban weapon acquired legally in 1993.

Metro cities like NYC and Chicago that have extremely stringent gun laws still unfortunately have high rates of gun violence (because the criminal element is acquiring the guns elsewhere.). Which would mean a nationwide ban on ALL guns, which I’m guessing is that proverbial elephant in the room.[/quote]

I think there is something between what we have now and a nationwide ban on all guns. The fact that it may have been acquired legally is the point. Is there a good reason why that particular gun is legal?

I do understand the inherent problems in gun control. Make them (or some of them) illegal, and only criminals have them. This gun was owned by a non-criminal. If it was illegal to own, would she have owned it? I’ve seen no evidence that she was a criminal. (Though there have been some allusions that she may have been a bit whacked.)

I am somewhat sympathetic to the RKBA arguments. In theory anyway. Though many seem hollow, inconsistent, and often hypocritical.

[SK in CV]

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was something….anything…that could be done to reduce the likelihood of these kinds of events happening. I can’t imagine what it might be. But whatever it might be, we can’t ever dare mention the elephant in the room.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
HA!

Everyone needs to click this link:

http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-120051483#9%5B/quote%5D

sadly, words you very rarely see in listings….”pig does not convey.”

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]

Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.

[SK in CV]

Not exactly the rich, but certainly the connected. IPO sponsors (investment banks) get the shares and distribute them at the IPO price as they want. It’s not unusual for IPO’s to be over-subscribed. More buyers than there are shares. You almost always have to know somebody to get over-subscribed IPO shares at the offer price. Everyone else gets them on the open market.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

[/quote]

This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.[/quote]
$5M from a net worth of $40B+? That’s less than 0.01%. chump change? What’s your average joe tax burden compare to their net worth?[/quote]

I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

[/quote]

This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Obviously Bush is behind all of this, even QE4, 5, 6 and 7![/quote]

I’m quite sure nobody has ever claimed that Bush is behind it. It’s as ridiculous a claim as that which charges this is Keynesian economics at work. It’s not. Keynes, at most, was agnostic on monetary manipulation as a means of economic stimulus.

I’m not so sure that it doesn’t benefit the economy as a whole, but there’s no question that the biggest beneficiaries are debt holders. That’s the big banks. Is there a better way to do the same thing or better for the economy as a whole without particularly benefitting the banking industry? I could be convinced, but I haven’t seen any ideas that meet the requirements.

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount]The only way this gets fixed is if California goes bankrupt.

IMO most on this board have a moral obligation to now leave California.[/quote]

Huh? Why would there be a moral obligation to leave? And why most? Who gets to stay?[/quote]

If you work in the private sector, leave. Otherwise, you’re an enabler.

California must go bankrupt.[/quote]

12 million people out of work. There’s a good idea. That should help a lot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]The only way this gets fixed is if California goes bankrupt.

IMO most on this board have a moral obligation to now leave California.[/quote]

Huh? Why would there be a moral obligation to leave? And why most? Who gets to stay?

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Squatter]CALPERS trying to rewrite city bankruptcy rules

Bloomberg:
“The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is trying to rewrite the rules for bankrupt cities, claiming that it should get paid before almost everyone else, including bondholders.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/calpers-bankruptcy-strategy-pits-retirees-vs-all-others.html%5B/quote%5D

That’s opinion that is not consistent with bankruptcy law. Chapter 9 is pretty unique, and there isn’t all that much in the way of precedent. But the rules regarding priorities of claims remains. And debts to employees are priority claims, even in chapter 9. Calpers is not trying to rewrite any existing law. The law simply does not exist.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]UCGal, just so I read your post correctly, you’re saying that the guy’s pay is $400k but after vacation payout, his pay went up to $822k? That’s 100% increase from vacation pay? Who can save a year’s worth of vacation?[/quote]
The state apparently doesn’t have a “use it or lose it” policy.
And he “apparently” was working 17 hour days because they cut back staff and increased patients… so he had more shifts.

I just read the article.

I have coworkers who would have way more than a years salary in vacation pay if we didn’t cap at 1.5x the annual accrual. They’ve stopped accruing because they hit the cap a long time ago. They are workaholics who never take time off.
(I don’t have that problem. LOL)[/quote]

I don’t think that’s uncommon at all at employers who allow unlimited carryover, though this is probably at the high side. I think it’s pretty rare now to allow for unlimited carryover. I know a guy who retired and still had over 18 months of unused vacation pay. He expected the employer to offer him a buyout, but they didn’t. He stopped working at about 55, started using his vacation, continued to have full health benefits, contribute to his 401K (with some matching), and didn’t technically retire until he was almost 57. Just kept getting his direct deposit paychecks twice a month or whatever. He’d worked for the company for over 30 years and got something like 6 weeks paid vacation annually by the time he retired and rarely used 2 weeks.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Well Goldman has spoken… Gee i feel so much better now (sarcasm)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blankfein-investors-face-big-risk-193728002.html

“Lloyd Blankfein is worried that investors think low interest rates will last forever.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, discussing how ‘Cliff’ deal may work.
“One of the big risks that’s looming is complacency. People are once again complacent about the low level of interest rates,” the Goldman Sachs CEO said at the New York Times DealBook conference Wednesday.
As a result, there could be losses for investors with portfolios heavy with low interest loans, Blankfein predicted.”[/quote]

I’ll bet he’s short LT debt obligations. Wouldn’t be the first time that GS did that. Sell the hell out of something, then short it, then bad mouth it. Everyone loses but them. And nobody goes to prison.

[SK in CV]

I read about that today at a different site. The funniest part…

And Hester goes on … claiming the show even gave less than photogenic cast members money for plastic surgery to “create more sex appeal”.

Darrell? The plastic surgery didn’t help.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/11/storage-wars-rigged-david-hester-lawsuit/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D244078

Barry is still my fav.

[Author]

Posts