Area gun sales, fears rising

Nov 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: North Port Sun

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Comments
6,001 - 6,020 of 7,571 Comments Last updated Jul 23, 2013
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6448
Apr 29, 2013
 
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>messiah needs to man up. He calims not to hurt the middle class. Oh, but, wait:
Consumers are saving less. The nationís personal-saving rate fell to 2.6% in the first quarter, down from 4.7% in the final three months of 2012. Higher payroll taxes since the start of the year and higher gasoline prices have taken a bite out of consumersí disposable incomes. The saving rate ó whatís left after spending and taxes ó is the lowest since late 2007, before the recession started.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/29/vit...
A teabagger "blog" in a teabagger newspaper.

Yep, that reliable.

Poor teabagger.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6449
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Tax cuts create jobs?
Yes it does. Sorry it's too simple to understand so I'll dumb it down for ya:
1- Tax cuts for businesses creates more capital, which allows for reinvestment to grow the busniess which creates jobs which increase tax revenue for Uncle Sam.
2-Tax cuts for individuals (or newly employed workers from No. 1 above) creates more disposible income that creates an increase in consumer spending which creates more capital which (see No. 1 above) which increase revenue for Uncle Sam.

Yet, you somehow believe that tax increases stimulates the economy? Weird. Taking money out of the econmoy does just the opposite of the above scenario.

Oh, and incase you play the corporate greed card, what do you think happens with that money (profit)? As salaries or bonuses, it's hidden away in matresses in large mansions? No, it's either invested in stocks, bonds, businesses or spent on lavish living that infact is called consumer spending that also creates jobs and grows businesses.

Growing the government does NOT grow the economy. Just ask Russia.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6450
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
A teabagger "blog" in a teabagger newspaper.
Yep, that reliable.
Poor teabagger.
Based upon the Cunsumer Index there gumby.

Poor little indoctrinated puppet.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6451
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Jun 26, 2011
Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican planning to seek the partyís presidential nomination, said she would stoke U.S. economic growth by cutting taxes on corporate income and capital gains and considering elimination of the minimum wage.
Tonight during the Republican Presidential debate Congressman Ron Paul was asked if he believes that eliminating the minimum wage would create jobs.
Minimum wage, maximum folly
Walter Williams

About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of Oprah Winfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage." After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of the heartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong. Let's look at it.

The show claims that 30 million Americans earn the minimum wage of $5 an hour. Actually, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and 17 states mandate a higher minimum wage that approaches $7 an hour. At one point, Oprah did manage to clear up this aspect of the show's errors.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15." ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2 )

Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.

The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the "proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042...

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6452
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum wage, maximum folly
Walter Williams
About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of Oprah Winfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage." After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of the heartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong. Let's look at it.
The show claims that 30 million Americans earn the minimum wage of $5 an hour. Actually, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and 17 states mandate a higher minimum wage that approaches $7 an hour. At one point, Oprah did manage to clear up this aspect of the show's errors.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15." ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2 )
Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the "proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042...
Excellent post.
Let's also keep mind: Minimum wage was not, never intended to be wages to raise a family on, earn a living on, own a home on, by cell phones, cars and big screen TVs on or be for FULL TIME pay. It was/is intended as a steeping stone for part time workers (not full time) to earn pocket change for teenagers, college students and a motivator to excel in life.
Stop your piss ant whining and get some skills/education if you don't like minimum wage and certainly don't plan on raising a family on it. That's just stupid.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6453
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent post.
Let's also keep mind: Minimum wage was not, never intended to be wages to raise a family on, earn a living on, own a home on, by cell phones, cars and big screen TVs on or be for FULL TIME pay. It was/is intended as a steeping stone for part time workers (not full time) to earn pocket change for teenagers, college students and a motivator to excel in life.
Stop your piss ant whining and get some skills/education if you don't like minimum wage and certainly don't plan on raising a family on it. That's just stupid.
Not only that, but it causes inflation because people who are working slightly above minimum wage find themselves making minimum wage once again, and then they want more money, and the domino effect takes place.

If we pay people a comfortable wage for any job, then what's the point of trying to better yourself? Some politicians will come along and make it all better for you. This is the mistake we made in the apex of the union days. People would leave high school and get a job at the steel mills or GM screwing nuts onto bolts for a very good wage. When they became middle-aged and had no experience at anything, those jobs were gone forever and the workers found themselves with a house and family they couldn't afford.

These people never tried to better themselves because there was no need to. They just rode around on a floor sweeper for $45,000 per year and great benefits. They thought it would last forever.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6454
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it does. Sorry it's too simple to understand so I'll dumb it down for ya:
1- Tax cuts for businesses creates more capital, which allows for reinvestment to grow the busniess which creates jobs which increase tax revenue for Uncle Sam.
2-Tax cuts for individuals (or newly employed workers from No. 1 above) creates more disposible income that creates an increase in consumer spending which creates more capital which (see No. 1 above) which increase revenue for Uncle Sam.
Yet, you somehow believe that tax increases stimulates the economy? Weird. Taking money out of the econmoy does just the opposite of the above scenario.
Oh, and incase you play the corporate greed card, what do you think happens with that money (profit)? As salaries or bonuses, it's hidden away in matresses in large mansions? No, it's either invested in stocks, bonds, businesses or spent on lavish living that infact is called consumer spending that also creates jobs and grows businesses.
Growing the government does NOT grow the economy. Just ask Russia.
Not hard to comprehend.

Very hard to understand.

How teabaggers still believe in a policy that has been a failure, since Reagan implemented it over 30 years ago.

And still is a failure today after 5 presidents were fooled into continuing tax cuts.

The "trickle" you feel is corporate urine, teabaggers think it's rain.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6455
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum wage, maximum folly
Walter Williams
About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of Oprah Winfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage." After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of the heartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong. Let's look at it.
The show claims that 30 million Americans earn the minimum wage of $5 an hour. Actually, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and 17 states mandate a higher minimum wage that approaches $7 an hour. At one point, Oprah did manage to clear up this aspect of the show's errors.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15." ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2 )
Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the "proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042...
Walter Williams?

AGAIN.

A teabagger economist who writes for teabagger publications.

As nutty as Michele Bachmann.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6456
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent post.
Let's also keep mind: Minimum wage was not, never intended to be wages to raise a family on, earn a living on, own a home on, by cell phones, cars and big screen TVs on or be for FULL TIME pay. It was/is intended as a steeping stone for part time workers (not full time) to earn pocket change for teenagers, college students and a motivator to excel in life.
Stop your piss ant whining and get some skills/education if you don't like minimum wage and certainly don't plan on raising a family on it. That's just stupid.
Thanks to teabaggers, that's all some people can get, it's either that or nothing.

Teabaggers want to take even that away.

That's stupid.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6457
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum wage, maximum folly
Walter Williams
About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of Oprah Winfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage." After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of the heartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong. Let's look at it.
The show claims that 30 million Americans earn the minimum wage of $5 an hour. Actually, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and 17 states mandate a higher minimum wage that approaches $7 an hour. At one point, Oprah did manage to clear up this aspect of the show's errors.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15." ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2 )
Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the "proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042...
I feel sorry for you, so short on facts and so long on stupid right-wing ideology and apparently unable to tell the difference. The federal minimum wage originated in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 25, 1938. The law established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for all employees who produced products shipped in interstate commerce. It was one dollar in 1956. Itís a modest economic measure but a big political oneóa proxy for larger discussions of freedom and justice even as its economic significance is miniscule. An economy based on low wages for workers is fit for your average Banana Republic not for a, supposedly, leading and model economy for the rest of the world. 80 % of our workforce is paid by the our, half of the employees at fast food restaurants and WalMart are on minimum wage and supported by the federal Govít is that what you f-ing dick head are advocating? These workers are not teenagers, most have to support their families.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6458
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel sorry for you, so short on facts and so long on stupid right-wing ideology and apparently unable to tell the difference. The federal minimum wage originated in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 25, 1938. The law established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for all employees who produced products shipped in interstate commerce. It was one dollar in 1956. Itís a modest economic measure but a big political oneóa proxy for larger discussions of freedom and justice even as its economic significance is miniscule. An economy based on low wages for workers is fit for your average Banana Republic not for a, supposedly, leading and model economy for the rest of the world. 80 % of our workforce is paid by the our, half of the employees at fast food restaurants and WalMart are on minimum wage and supported by the federal Govít is that what you f-ing dick head are advocating? These workers are not teenagers, most have to support their families.
Really, then provide some proof. You read Dr. Williams column, prove him wrong. I know you can't because the facts are as he presented--the bureau of labor statistics, although this was written in 2006, but I'm sure the statistics are probably the same or close to it.

So why not make minimum wage $20.00 per hour? How about $30.00 per hour? Hell, why not $50.00 per hour?

As a matter of fact, let's just keep separating us from the rest of the world when it comes to wages. It worked out so good in the past. That's why China makes most of our products now.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6459
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then provide some proof. You read Dr. Williams column, prove him wrong. I know you can't because the facts are as he presented--the bureau of labor statistics, although this was written in 2006, but I'm sure the statistics are probably the same or close to it.
So why not make minimum wage $20.00 per hour? How about $30.00 per hour? Hell, why not $50.00 per hour?
As a matter of fact, let's just keep separating us from the rest of the world when it comes to wages. It worked out so good in the past. That's why China makes most of our products now.
Sure genius, whatever you say - your Dr. Williams is a rightwingnuz and is corrected by any credible economist worth his or her salt

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6460
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>Credible post"?

All he posted was opinion, not facts or anything resembling them.

"Viable information"?

From right-wing nutjobs that writing colunms based on opinion and theory?

That just so happens to line up with thier bosses agenda?

Yes, "viable".

Keep trying.
Yes credible post.
He posted in response to your reply to me. If you can't even keep up with who you are debating or talking about, how can you claim to be so much smarter, educated or enlightened than any conservative?
But I guess that wasn't a viable point. Lmao!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6461
Apr 29, 2013
 
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>to our village idiot, aka. prep-for-dep, anything that pops in his head is fact ...
Disprove anything I've posted here.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6462
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure genius, whatever you say - your Dr. Williams is a rightwingnuz and is corrected by any credible economist worth his or her salt
Well...... then post those "worth their weight in salt" economists that disprove what Williams wrote here. I know people who make minimum wage. I've worked for minimum wage myself when I was younger many times.

Minimum wage is a set standard for non-skilled labor. That's all it is. It's a wage paid to clueless workers who are learning skills to make better money down the road. Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6463
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it does. Sorry it's too simple to understand so I'll dumb it down for ya:
1- Tax cuts for businesses creates more capital, which allows for reinvestment to grow the busniess which creates jobs which increase tax revenue for Uncle Sam.
2-Tax cuts for individuals (or newly employed workers from No. 1 above) creates more disposible income that creates an increase in consumer spending which creates more capital which (see No. 1 above) which increase revenue for Uncle Sam.
Yet, you somehow believe that tax increases stimulates the economy? Weird. Taking money out of the econmoy does just the opposite of the above scenario.
Oh, and incase you play the corporate greed card, what do you think happens with that money (profit)? As salaries or bonuses, it's hidden away in matresses in large mansions? No, it's either invested in stocks, bonds, businesses or spent on lavish living that infact is called consumer spending that also creates jobs and grows businesses.
Growing the government does NOT grow the economy. Just ask Russia.
If giving corporations and rich people tax breaks created
jobs as is claimed, we would have had a lot more jobs
at the end of the Bush presidency. Bush gave them big tax
breaks and their share of the wealth went way up, but at the
end of the Bush presidency the economy was losing 700,000
per month. There was a big sucking sound though, and it was
from the hundreds of billions of dollars being off-shored
or invested in the Chinese economy. Anywhere but America.

Tax cuts never pay for themselves. They didn't under Reagan.
But he did raise taxes 11 times.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6464
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gary wrote:
<quoted text>If giving corporations and rich people tax breaks created
jobs as is claimed, we would have had a lot more jobs
at the end of the Bush presidency. Bush gave them big tax
breaks and their share of the wealth went way up, but at the
end of the Bush presidency the economy was losing 700,000
per month. There was a big sucking sound though, and it was
from the hundreds of billions of dollars being off-shored
or invested in the Chinese economy. Anywhere but America.

Tax cuts never pay for themselves. They didn't under Reagan.
But he did raise taxes 11 times.
You are looking at that one dimensionally. You have to take the consumer into consideration as well. The consumer wanted cheap. You have to consider unions. They contributed to the move to China. You have to consider the pages of attorneys in the yellow pages. They want US employees to sue their employer or worker's comp for stubbing their toe at work. That doesn't happen in China. You have to consider the abuse of minimum wage in the US, and the inability to learn from that abuse's failure. That doesn't happen in China. You have to consider the people collecting Welfare, Food Stamps, Government Housing, free phones and free minutes, and the numerous other government handout programs that allow them to live better than if they worked.
Those are just a few reasons jobs were moved to China. If not for tax breaks for corporations, more jobs would be in China.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6465
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Disprove anything I've posted here.
Over and over and over and ....
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6466
Apr 30, 2013
 
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes credible post.
He posted in response to your reply to me. If you can't even keep up with who you are debating or talking about, how can you claim to be so much smarter, educated or enlightened than any conservative?
But I guess that wasn't a viable point. Lmao!
Walter Williams sources for his "opinion"?

Matthew Slaughter,a senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations.

He is also known for his presentations to non-specialist audiences, earning a reputation among business journalists as an advocate of globalization. Dr. Slaughter has also consulted for various corporations, addressing the challenges of international trade, investment, and taxation.

Hmmmm.

Then Williams poses a question:

"My question to Clinton, Obama and the anti-trade lobby is, would Americans be better off if there were no foreign investment in our country"?

Trade and investment are two different enities.

"better off if there were no foreign investment in our country"?

And yes, we would.

The deficit would disappear in a year if all our revenue went to American companies building and expanding their companies in America, for Americans.

We have the one of the world's largest economy's and consumers purchasing power buying,investing,working,creat ing and supporting American companies, would actually support the job you go to every day.

The profit stays here.

Instead with deregulated,"free" trader, globalist, we get deficits and unemployment .

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6467
Apr 30, 2013
 

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••