Skip to main content

So how do the American people respond to mass shootings of innocents? How do they want their elected representatives to respond?

There are those that would argue that the tragic, and they were heartrendingly tragic, events in Newtown last month would be the last straw for the American people. They would finally lay down their arms, "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. "

The American people do one thing that is incontrovertible as a result of mass shootings. They arm themselves.

We do have some data to refer to concerning gun sales. It's not all cloak and dagger and gun shows and back alleys. Yes, background checks have to be run on all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed retailers. I underwent this background check a decade ago when I purchased my firearm from a pawn shop/gun store.

Background checks are necessary for individuals buying firearms from federally licensed retailers. Actual gun sales figures are not easily trackable.

Reuters examined the number of background checks in the month of and the month after 15 mass shootings since 1999. A mass shooting was defined as an incident where at least five people were killed and where the event received sustained media attention over a period of days.

The analysis found that background checks in the month of and the month after mass shootings were on average 19 percent higher than checks in other months. The pattern holds even after 2006, when gun sales broadly started to rise.

Actual guns sales figures are not trackable, but this does make gun sales trendable. The number 40% has been bandied about by the Brady Campaign, our President and Mayor Bloomberg for the number of guns sold without a background check. About 1% of sales were denied in 2009 due to background checks. I think it is fair to say that the number of background checks in any given month is a reasonable reflection of a minimum number of new gun purchases. In November and December of 2012, 4,790,684 background checks were run.

To put that in perspective, During fiscal year 2010, the Regular Army reported a strength of 561,979 soldiers; the Army National Guard (ARNG) reported 362,015 and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) reported 205,281 putting the combined component strength total at 1,129,275 soldier In two months, enough guns were purchased by the American people to give each soldier 3 or 4 new firearms.

This is just two months sales. And it's not like nobody was armed before November, 2012.

By the same year, 2009, the
estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to
approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.
The American people are keeping and bearing arms as hard and as fast as they can.

So what's Harry Reid going to do about it? "Is (a ban on assault weapons) something that can pass the Senate? Maybe," Reid said in an interview with a PBS television affiliate in Las Vegas. "Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it."

Will he expose Senators up for re-election on a bill that won't pass the house? What are his constituents doing? Gun sales are booming.

Nevada's rules on assault weapon sales are so lax that some blame the Silver State for the flow of such firearms into California, where the guns have been banned in some form since 1989. With a reorganized NRA contingent, growing gun club memberships, and a slew of pro-firearm laws passed in the past five years, gun enthusiasts here said they are not concerned that their local lawmakers will join California's march toward an antigun culture.

Yet they do worry that federal authorities will try to force them.

Then there is Senator Al Franken. We all heard about his waffle last week. Why would he do that?

Perhaps, because Minnesota buyers are taking up arms in record numbers.

Kay Hagen and Mark McIntyre in North Carolina have not made their positions "clear."

Why would they not take a stand? They are selling so many guns in North Carolina that the permit process is backlogged.

My Senator, Bill Nelson, did express support for the President's agenda. He also went snake hunting over the weekend, and made sure his constituents knew it! Interestingly, on his web site, there is a poll concerning re instituting the assault weapons ban. Right now, 88+% are opposed.

Look, realistically, and taking into account the apparent desire to keep and bear arms in this country - I don't think much is going to happen on gun control. The President did what he could in those matters, but the executive office does not legislate. He's asking Congress to consider a new Assault Weapons Ban and a ban on high capacity magazines - but he can't demand it. He is writing quite a few memo's to agencies within the executive branch urging people to do their jobs for God's sake. There is one letter mentioned in those proposals, and I bet that will be "strongly worded" when it gets written. The armed guards thing (and I don't care what anyone here says, that WAS a hat tip to the NRA) is probably the likeliest to see fruition - and that is already happening in the states. It makes sense to me if we can put armed guards in the courthouse and the sports arena, we should give our children the same protection.

Perhaps it is time to accept the things we cannot change - all of the above. And change the things we can - mental health care, eforcement of existing laws, expanded background checks, armed security for our children and teachers.

Thank you for your time and attention, if you managed to slog through it all!

Best regards,

A Florida Pragmatist

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not so much (13+ / 0-)
    The American people are keeping and bearing arms as hard and as fast as they can.
    A big part of the whole thing is that a small percentage of gun owners are buying LOTS of guns, while the bulk of the gun owners are not.

    Whatever else, the polling on this stuff is clear.  The vast majority want universal background checks, a majority want to pass the AWB.  We've got multiple polling outfits coming to the same conclusions on all of this.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:24:46 PM PST

    •  Universal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1, theboz, andalusi

      background checks - nobody has a problem with them as far as I can tell. That's realistic. That's why I put it in the "can do" column.

      Re instatement of the AWB - Not so much.

      It was of not much use when we had one before.

      •  Uh (10+ / 0-)

        Your link confirms that the majority (ie, over 50%) generally seem in favor of the new AWB.  Clearly there is some variation in the different polls, but they mostly cluster in the 50s.

        Will it pass the house? No.  But that's because the republicans are out of touch, not becuase the majority of americans oppose the AWB.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deward Hastings, FrankRose

          not even close to the numbers that favor background checks and armed guards in schools. Up in the 80+%

          And 65% said that if any law were passed banning their firearm, they would defy the law.

        •  somewhere between (7+ / 0-)

          a quarter and a third (depending on age and location) of all Democrats own guns, rising to over half in rural areas.  If you want to do to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party has done to the Republicans I can think of no better way than:

          "Hi, I'm from the Democrtic Party and I'm here to take your guns . . ."

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:54:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  True (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost and Found, reflectionsv37

            Good thing that Obama is not proposing a ban on ALL GUNS.  

            There are reasonable arguments that this is a bad move politically for the dems, I'm just saying that the arguments and stats in this diary aren't those reasons.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:56:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama isn't . . . (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annecros, FrankRose, BlackSheep1, theboz

              but quite a few here on dKOS are.  And the "optics" of that are exactly what the opponents of any gun control will play to . . .

              "Don't kid yourself, they are not going to stop at Czechoslovacia . . . it will be Poland next."

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:04:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Also true (3+ / 0-)

                But again, not what the diary is about.  Here is the opening to the diary

                So how do the American people respond to mass shootings of innocents? How do they want their elected representatives to respond?

                There are those that would argue that the tragic, and they were heartrendingly tragic, events in Newtown last month would be the last straw for the American people. They would finally lay down their arms, "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. "

                The American people do one thing that is incontrovertible as a result of mass shootings. They arm themselves.

                The argument is about the American people, not DKos users...and the argument is that the American people arm themselves--none of which is really demonstrated in the diary.

                "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:13:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You didn't click (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deward Hastings, FrankRose

                  through and read the background data?

                  When people buy guns they aren't arming themselves?

                  I'm guessing that's news to them.

                  •  No, I did just that (2+ / 0-)

                    to links that specified that a majority of americans want the AWB to pass.

                    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                    by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:20:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What (0+ / 0-)

                      about the government data and studies on gun ownership? The background check analysis?

                      Or would you just rather not know?

                      That's cool with me, if ya wanna be that way.

                      •  I do know (2+ / 0-)

                        and what I know, is that those numbers have absofuckinglutley nothing to do with whether the majority of people in this nation do or do not favor passing an Assault Weapons Ban.

                        The statement that some people have gone out and bought guns in the face of the proposed restriction does not mean that the majority of people (or even the majority of gun owners) oppose the AWB.  

                        Let me just ask a simple question...what proportion of americans went out and bought an assault weapon since Sandy hook?  If you can't answer that question, then your analysis provides absolutely no support for the idea that American People oppose the AWB en masse.

                        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                        by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:33:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Nobody can answer (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Deward Hastings, FrankRose

                          that question, silly. You can't answer that question either. I acknowledged that in the diary, because 40% of guns are sold without a background check.

                           Anecdotal information certainly supports that quite a few have been sold, considering that assault rifles and high capacity magazines are reportedly selling out and on back order all over the country.

                          The American people oppose anything that makes their weapon illegal. Any elected official that attempts to make their weapon illegal can pretty much kiss reelection goodbye.

                          The question the diary puts out there for discussion, is what political price are we willing to pay for gun control as a party?

                          You don't seem to want to consider the implications.

                          •  I am gonna scream (0+ / 0-)

                            WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...ALL OF THEM...SOME OF THEM...A FEW OF THEM!!!!

                            you keep talking about the "American People" oppose anything that makes their weapon illegal.  But that has fuck-all to do with whether or not they think assault weapons should be illegal.

                             As a simple matter of fact, we know that some, in fact a majority, are good with restricting Assault Weapons.  We know this because the links that you provided go to surveys of the AMERICAN PEOPLE and over 50% say they support an AWB.

                            What have you got that contradicts that? Cause it sure as hell ain't anything in the background check data, cause as you say..."nobody can answer that question, silly."

                            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                            by Empty Vessel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:52:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Electing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, andalusi

                            more and better Democrats.

                            If you can't figure out that this is what this is all about, sorry for you.

                            Since you are reduced to shouting, I shall now disengage with you.

                •  when four million people (4+ / 0-)

                  buy guns (I'm just guessing that) some of them are Democrats.  And (I'm just guessing) they don't want them taken away.  And they're not going to look with great favor on any politician who proposes taking them away.  Or even hints at it.

                  Of course if that same politician proposes a scheme that's perceived as aimed at taking guns away from "the bad guys" they'll be all over him.  It's to defend themselves against the "bad guys" that they are buying the guns in the first place (and they'd rather the government do that . . . they just don't believe that it will).

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:28:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Gun Control has far less support than it did in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, DavidMS

          1994.
          That wasn't a good year for the Democrats.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:16:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Empty vessel: I'd prefer a realistic crackdown (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Baculum King, andalusi, annecros

          on crime involving the use of firearms. In other words, control the actors in these incidents.

          Background checks suit me.
          But the Virginia Tech shooting showed us that all the "background checks" laws in the world -- and I'm hearing some guy who'd been locked up for murdering a family member got out and misreported his name, thus getting around the background checks in another state, which re-emphasizes the point I'm about to make -- are worthless if the data isn't kept current (and that needs doing on a regular and timely basis). That's going to cost money. That means we're going to need to fund the background checks, in some manner that can't be siphoned off for other purposes.

          I like the idea of better mental health care too. LIkewise with the funding.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:42:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  For what purpose? (0+ / 0-)

        Background checks are useless unless there is also registration of guns, which you seem to be opposed to, and interesting logical disconnect.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:50:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The same few million who already are gun owners (7+ / 0-)

    buy more. Is that what you mean?

    And does this sound even vaguely peculiar to you?

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:25:48 PM PST

    •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deward Hastings, FrankRose

      Are you telling me a 4 million background checks to buy a gun, are all for people who already have a gun?

      Doesn't that sound incredibly silly to you?

      I mean sure, some already have guns. Some are buying multiple guns on the same background check. Some are new gun owners.

      Some are foregoing the background check and buying the guns on the street. THOSE are the people we need to worry about, in my opinion.

      •  By my calculation, the 4 million would represent (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Jazz at High Noon

        one new item for 10% of current owners. That would just be my back of the envelope numbers. But I can tell you that in the hundreds of quotes I've seen in these situations, I have yet to see one saying "I just had to get my first gun", and all the rest were "better get some more now, while we still can".

        People scared into buying their first gun are not usually scared into it by some nebulous mass murder situation totally outside of the realm of their daily life.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:28:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There was a diary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          here on DailyKos last week where the diarist was discussing why she purchased her first gun.

          Only 65% of gun owners own multiples as of 2010 - the most current data available.

          •  At 45 million owners, then, 15 million would (0+ / 0-)

            have one each and the other thirty million the remainder of the 300 million total that is often quoted. Given how many own at least 10, and commonly upwards of thirty, that would all seem to balance.

            Just not very large numbers of gun owners, which would also seem to match the observed pattern.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:42:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The census (0+ / 0-)

              says 52 million owners, owning 260 million guns.

              AHA - 45% of American households.

              http://wiki.answers.com/...

              Only about a third are handguns.

              •  That means (0+ / 0-)

                two thirds are long guns. A third to a half would fall under semi-automatic rifles.

              •  I guessed 45 and missed your number by 7. About (0+ / 0-)

                120,000,000 votes were cast for President this time, a number that is said to have been a modest percentage of all eligible voters, so we're still at not a real large number of gun owners.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:24:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  52 million as of 2010 (0+ / 0-)

                  as of 2010, with gun sales climbing incrementally since, and then skyrocketing the last two months.

                  You have to be older to buy a gun than vote, so a third to a half of the voting age population?

                  That's a significant number.

                  •  Well under a half of registered voters. And any (0+ / 0-)

                    of those folks who are single issue voters are already voting pure right wing.

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:27:07 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  About a third (0+ / 0-)

                      of the registered voters. About 45% of households have a gun.

                      There are those who support the 2nd Amendment who do not own guns, ya know.

                      119 million votes were cast in 2012. That brings it closer to 44%.

                      We had President Obama in that election as well. We won't ever have him in an election again. Gonna miss his coattails here in Florida

                      •  About a third of registered voters, so no more (0+ / 0-)

                        than 20% of those who voted. And of that number, what, 80 % went right? And what never gets mentioned is that plenty of households that have guns in them don't really care either way.

                        Show me a left wing polling professional who says these voters are critical. (And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers.)

                        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                        by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 03:24:51 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You know you can't (0+ / 0-)

                          extrapolate that. The demo that turns out at the polls is dependent upon the issues of the day.

                          Let's low ball it and say that 15% of the voters care enough about guns to allow it to influence a vote.

                          15% is a huge margin on election day. Certainly a comfortable win.

                          Harry Reid knows that.

  •  Or may we shouldn't accept (4+ / 0-)

    These things.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:30:38 PM PST

  •  Citing an Internet poll? LOL. /NT (3+ / 0-)
  •  Laissez-faire on guns is not an option (4+ / 0-)

    there are just too many guns available. Fix the gun problem, then look at the mental health problem.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:53:02 PM PST

  •  Actually - the percentage of the population that (3+ / 0-)

    owns a gun is decreasing not increasing.   But for those that do, one is obviously not enough.

    •  I searched (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      the stats for that number. All I could find in the FBI data was the increase in background checks.

      65% of gun owners in 2010 own more than one gun. That WAS in the data.

      If you have a more up to date number, I'd like to see it.

  •  Political reality is this. The majority of the (4+ / 0-)

    population wants stronger gun regulations.  

    The majority does not own guns.  

    Most of the candidates the NRA supported lost.

    When politicians start losing elections because they OPPOSED gun regulation, things will begin to change but not until.

    •  And for some they respond by pretending it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lost and Found

      never happened.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/...

    •  The majority of the population in (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSWaterspirit, FrankRose, mlbx2, LordMike

      New York, New Jersey, Delaware, sure.

      Not in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana - all states where Democratic Senators are up for reelection in 2014.

      That's the deal here. And the political reality.

    •  The majority also couldn't tell me what the law is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andalusi, Hangpilot, annecros

      If I asked people what federal and their state's gun laws are and then how these laws should be changed, I would not be suppressed to learn that most everyone does not know current law or enough about firearms to make good policy.  

      I would learn that the public in Maryland wants a waiting period before taking possession of a pistol.  Its already the law.  I would learn that the public wants a ban on machine guns, we already effectively have one nationwide (there are ~250,000 and the registry is closed, one costs about $3,000 up to $20,000+).  I would learn that pistol grips are for shooting from the hip (not true, they are to allow a straight stock that allows the body to better absorb recoil).  I would also learn that Glocks are all plastic and cannot be detected via metal detectors (not true) and that shooting someone with a .45 will knock them 10 feet away from the shooter (also not true).

      In short, I would lean that the public knows more about movies than about guns.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:24:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This in a nutshell (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hangpilot, annecros, DavidMS

        So many people calling for gun control forget we already have gun control and that in many cases---such as the ones you listed---the law already restricts what they're asking to be restricted.

        Reinstating the AWB's restrictions on AR-15s and magazines that hold more than ten rounds, of course, is the big exception. But I don't think most people realize how ineffective the AWB was or what an AR-15 actually is, and even here on the Daily Kos, there are some how are actually proud of being willfully ignorant about a subject that they nevertheless want to heavily restrict.

  •  Re two of your statements (0+ / 0-)

    A link you included noting that

    … buyers are taking up arms in record numbers.
    and your conclusion
    Perhaps it is time to accept the things we cannot change - all of the above. And change the things we can - mental health care, eforcement of existing laws, expanded background checks, armed security for our children and teachers.
    On the latter, which is easier to change: those things you listed -or- ourselves? Simple question.

    That is, is it easier to change our understanding and focus, or to pass legislation in an adverse environment?

    On the former: who benefits from "buyers are taking up arms in record numbers." Again, simple question.

    I ask, not to be coy, but to allude to a re-direction.

    United We Understand

    by dorkenergy on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:39:53 PM PST

    •  I can change (0+ / 0-)

      but I can't make anyone else do so.

      Is that what you are asking?

      •  What I meant was … (0+ / 0-)

        directed more at Progressives in general -- because the goals they seek are (definitionally?) for the greater societal benefit.

        To best improve the odds of our actually accomplishing that, in these political climes, requires (as I have only recently come to understand), an appreciation of how certain myths of economics have misdirected our framings.

        Taking, as examples, the items on your list -- all require $, particularly #1, 2, and 4. The moment any such proposals are raised, the myths of economics control the framing. And we (not only dems in general, but progressives as well) buy into that framing -- with the words we use and the debates we engage in.

        We talk about "government spending" for programs of our liking and then quickly accept that such discussions must occur in the context of "federal deficit" and "federal debt".

        That framing has been bulldozed onto us by a school of economics that has ruled undergraduate and collegiate economics teaching for decades. It uses a macro-economic accounting system that is corrupt (pluses are minuses, etc.) and has been thoroughly disproven when applied in the context of a government (like ours and several others around the world, but not the EU) that is "monetarily sovereign" -- i.e., that can issue currency to satisfy its "public purpose".

        I know this might sound foreign or irrelevant -- but that's because those who benefit (Banksters, etc.) from the corrupt system -- called "neo-liberal" economics -- have so shaped the public discourse, that it IS strange.

        And, as we know from Frank Luntz and others, repetition has created that effect -- from economics classes, to the WSJ, to …. And it blends in with so many other memes in our heritage: hard work, penny saved, balance your checkbook, ….

        And it's most certainly relevant -- understanding it is more key to our success than any other component of our "progressive" framing at this point in time.

        That's what I meant by changing ourselves. All of us. And there's nothing to feel bad about here -- even Krugman doesn't fully understand (though he's been incrementally moving towards it recently).

        Back to the words: "federal deficit". For a government that can issue currency, the term "de-ficit" improperly carries a negative connotation. It's better thought of -- and if we don't recognize this, nobody will -- as government's "net contribution" to the economy (or society).

        This re-framing comes from a theory of economics -- referred to as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) -- that provides, without self-serving distortions, a description of money and government's relation to it.

        It's something we can use -- if we change ourselves by learning about it. I apologize on its behalf, that learning will  take a bit of effort -- but that's because it's different from what we know and MMT, though it builds on work from early last century, has only recently been re-discovered, evolved, and pursued with vigor (mostly at UMKC).

        Because this progress is so recent, the message and reframing hasn't fully formed. The math is all there but the public presentation is still being evolved. Part of that work is happening here at dKos in the Money and Public Purpose group, where much is cross-posted from New Economic Perspectives.

        For starters, there's a fun, quick, explanatory video, MMT for Dummiez, recently published at that site.

        Another oft-cited intro is by Warren Mosler (in the credits for that video) -- Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy.

        "'Deficit' is the Wrong Word and Concept" was posted by Michael Hoexter at NEP, here.

        bunnygirl60 has also done some excellent write-ups on dKos and here in an alter-ego.

        Apologies for being cryptic in my earlier comment and perhaps sounding like I might be selling something here.

        But it will really help. For a whole bunch of reasons -- not the least of which is Obama is beguiled by that same neoliberal malarkey. It's why he talks about "balancing the budget". The "budget" doesn't need to be "balanced". Government needs to make a larger contribution to the societal welfare -- in other words we need a BIGGER deficit.

        But that won't happen (even ignoring repubs) -- there won't even be an argument for it. Every single one of Obama's economic advisors is a lawyer (Geitner, Lew, and Daley, as well as Obama, are all trained as lawyers, and then employed in "finance" in various capacities) beholden and beguiled by neoliberal mythology.

        To show you how deep this is --

        Lew's predecessor as chief of staff was William Daley. Daley is a lawyer. Daley was on the executive board of J.P. Morgan- Chase during the crisis and before that he was on Fannie Mae's board of directors. Daley is a member of "Third Way's" controlling board. Third Way is a Pete Peterson ally that lobbies in favor of austerity and cuts to the safety net. It pushes Wall Street's, and Pete Peterson's, greatest dream -- privatizing Social Security. Privatization would allow Wall Street to increase its profits by hundreds of billions of dollars in fees for managing our retirement savings,
        from (MMT proponent) William Black's 1/10 piece in HuffPo "Jacob Lew: Another Brick in the Wall Street on the Potomac"

        We need to change ourselves, so we can teach Obama.

        Obama has asked us to correct him when he is mistaken. He is. His entire economic framing is self-defeating. Because he doesn't know. (And like I said, in a sense that's ok, because even Krugman doesn't fully get it.)

        Again, apologies, but I hope that helps.

        United We Understand

        by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 04:18:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obviously more guns mean more deaths (0+ / 0-)

    So at least we are getting population control.

    If this is the goal, there must be a smarter way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site