the not-so-sweet 16

In one of the United States' most lopsided gun votes in the nation's recent history, there was broad, bi-partisan support for a recent pro-gun bill in the Senate. 

Of the entire senate, a measly 16 Senators voted against Senator Vitter's legislation to prohibit the usage of taxpayer funds from the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill to be used for the purpose of confiscating lawfully owned guns in the event of an emergency, such as what occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

They were all democrats: 

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Of all times to confiscate weapons, though they are all bad, the period directly after a disaster with widespread lawlessness when self-defense is most crucial, is most certainly one of the worst to choose.  These 16 democrats stuck with their anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment convictions and voted against this legislation. 

All OTHER 28 democrats in the senate, joined by every one of the 55 republicans voted for this common sense legislation. 

>>35

"That would have spelled doom for the institution that is faring better than health care by far."

I'll agree Social Security is faring better than health care.  The thing is though, health care as we are doing it now is simply not faring well. It costs too much, and social security, while it isn't doing AS BAD, is still not doing well enough.

At the very least, our health care expenditures are not sustainable.  Our national debt and expenditures are skyrocketing, and we can't keep this up, let alone have nationalized medicine and or massive foreign aid like Kerry and the dems want.  (yet they claim to be fiscally responsible?)

Bush's tax cuts are working.  The main economic qualm I see with Bush is that the war in iraq and afghanistan are simply costing too much tax money, and the aim is not apparently to get Osama Bin Laden (just watch that daily show vid a guy posted here a while back). 

It has nothing to do with 9/11.  It has to do with making the Mid. east safe for Israel.  As far as the middle east/israeli conflict goes, I'm not really sure who I support, but I sure as hell don't support wars or foreign aid.  That money could be much better spent here at home. 

We have underfunded schools, enormous deficits, and runaway spending coming from both parties, and I can't see how giving out MORE money in the form of foreign aid or war is justfiable in our present economic situation - to Israel or anyone else. (Not to mention the obvious that foreign aid doesn't help the poor - but rather props up the horrible dictators and governments that are the reason they are poor to begin with, imo.)

The war isn't good either, but again, the republicans are a package deal.  Maybe an anti-war republican will step up in 08 and put a stop to it somehow, who knows. 

Bush's economic policies are good, for the most part.  He should more agressively cut corporate welfare, welfare, social security, govt medical shit, etc.  It all just costs too much.  Again, look at the link I posted above.  We clearly can't sustain this.  Our national debt is fucking out of control, and the dems are talking about Nationalized medicine?

Bush was one of the advocates of cutting the farm subsidy.  Many people don't know about it, but the vast majority of money from this subsidy is funneled into corporate-style factory farms, not to the idyllic farm scene you imagine when you imagine some little family run operation.  It doesn't help the little farmers, it helps the BIG farmers, the corporate ones, yet the dems are parading around going to co-ops and shit getting their food, whining about little farmers.  This makes no sense to me.   

How economically out to lunch can we get? Where do they think this money will come from? Raise taxes, and take more money from the pockets of the already not-so-well-off middle and lower classes? Reaganomics and supply side economics apparently works, and it seems to benefit just about everyone.  Who DOESN'T want the economy to boom?

Economically speaking, neither major party is perfect, but as far as economics goes, the republicans are apparently superior.   I had doubts about it until I read the NYTimes article, but it's all falling into place.  Even with the war factored in, the deficit actually went DOWN in response to Bush's tax cuts, recently. 

All the presidents that slashed taxes and cut spending had economic boom following them.  (It's not just partisan politics either, the same thing happened with Kennedy, and he followed this economic idea as well.)

Also, Bush's tax cuts favor the rich because the rich pay more taxes... it makes perfect sense. 

The top 1% of people in terms of income in the USA pay 30-40% of the taxes.  Obviously they should get a larger share of the tax cut.

Even with this in mind, the middle and lower classes pay the most of the taxes.  The conclusion? Individually, taxes hurt the rich more, yes.  Collectively? They hurt the poor and middle classes more.

This is all on top of the fact that Reaganomics is apparently being proven right.