Change.gov

http://change.gov/

obama's new sight to help keep americans informed as well as allow them to offer thier input into changes in the government.

?

Interesting use of transparency.

I like the pictures on the right side of the page, where they're looking longingly into the future.  The future where things have changed.

Benjichang wrote: Wth is the internet?

I think it's that new fancy lining in swimming trunks to keep your bojangles where they should be.

Brian Fellows wrote: Benjichang wrote: Wth is the internet? I think it's that new fancy lining in swimming trunks to keep your bojangles where they should be.

I LOLed

So I actually looked through the site... Not too shabby.
I particularly like his attitudes towards restoring a
public service ethic. I hope those initiatives progress
smoothly.

<expletive, double expletive, triple expletive>!!!!!!

Straight from the horse's mouth.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

The Tiahrt Amendment which they want to do away with, "prohibits the BATF from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit."

Thus, what it says on Obama's website about the amendment restricting, "...the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information." Is a bunch of bull**edited**. They CAN access the BATF database so long as their inquiries are associated with a criminal investigation. This amendment is in place to protect the privacy rights of gun owners across the nation. Furthermore, the BATF database only logs legal store purchases and firearms which have been seized by the BATF (which are promptly either stored by the BATF or destroyed). This proposal has nothing to do with criminal actions. It is an attempt to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens who wish to practice their second amendment rights.

As for the Gun Show "Loophole" that everyone always talks about but never attempts to explain. Firearms in the possession of an individual are transferable to another individual within the same state without a background check so long as the transaction is between a non-licensed owner and buyer. What this means is that private collectors such as myself and Shorty may walk into a gun show and sell pieces of our collections to other collectors and vice-versa, the same as if we were to do it in private at our homes. It does not mean that dealers are allowed to sell firearms as shows to people without performing a background check. All licensed firearms dealers must have BATF form 4473 and a cell phone on them at all times so that they can perform the NCIS background check.

Now, I have no problem with requiring private sellers to perform such a background check and keep a log book. C&R license holders are required to keep a log book of their firearms transactions and I have no problem with it. But this means that the FBI would have to make the NCIS line available to the public for free. The other issue is that the general public are not experts on I.D.'s thus the law would have to state, for the protection of the public, that no private seller can be held responsible for selling a firearm to someone with an ID of reasonable authenticity, just like the dram-shop laws state to protect the owners of establishments that serve alcohol. The day they do that is the day that I say "Go right ahead!"

I explained that the "Assault Weapons" ban is nothing more than a feel-good piece of legislation that does nothing to actually ban military style weapons from being owned or operated in this country. Furthermore, the definition of an "assault weapon" is arbitrary at best. The vast majority of gun crimes committed in this nation are not committed with military firearms but rather cheap handguns. All this type of ban does is keep legitimate collectors such as myself and Shorty from being able to purchase the pieces we want for historical value.

This is why people are going out and buying firearms at a 300% uptake in the past week. NCIS checks are up 300% and you can't keep surplus ammo on the shelves it's moving so fast. Everyone that says we are "paranoid" can shove their foot in their mouth. We've seen it coming from a long way off and now you can see it too, right there on the transitional website.

tallen702 wrote: I wonder if they'll take my suggestion: "I believe that all elected federal officials should be made to serve their terms from prison. They're all guilty of something. Once their term is up, their records will be expunged and they may resume life as normal, law-abiding citizens."

What happens if they go back into politics instead?

Snake6 wrote: LOL tallen is flippin out.

He has reason to.  The second amendment is the "teeth" of the constitution.  It doesn't exist to allow people to defend themselves, or to slaughter furry forest critters; it exists to allow the public the ultimate right of veto in the case of a government that forgets it is ultimately answerable to the people.  (Much like the English colonists in North America did back in the 1700s.) 

The fact is our rights are being eroded by politicians from both sides of the spectrum.  The Patriot Act was a good example and this, while aimed at a different right, is also.

Something else from that sight that worried me was his minimum wage goals.  A nearly 50% increase in three years is beyond keeping up with inflation and the repercussions have to be considered.  (Yes, I'm about to rant a bit about economics; something I mentioned in another post as being my prime worry about Obama.) 

While it would be nice if everyone had everything they needed without possessing minimal useful skills or putting forth more than minimal effort, that just isn't the way the world works.  The simple fact is that some jobs aren't worth the existing minimum wage and some potential employees aren't either (do to lack of skills/motivation). 

Faced with rising costs, businesses who are forced to pay a higher minimum wage could pass the cost on to consumers.  This raises prices and has the potential to make any raise in minimum wage null and void.  (Yes they get paid more, but they also have to pay more for the necessities of survival.)

The same business could also decide that the work being performed by the minimum wage employees is no longer worth the cost of having it done.  In this case they release some, or all, of the minimum wage employees and transfer the work to other employees.  This would be in line with the "do more with less" approach that many organizations are now taking to improve efficiency.

Dismissing these employees creates a second problem as many of them are not really qualified for a lot of jobs.  (If they were, they would be competing for more than minimum wage jobs.)  This increases the work pool (supply) for what is a decreasing job market (demand).  In the real world (unfettered by government regulation) this would cause the price of labor to decrease and it would become economical to employ these individuals.  With a minimum wage law, the price of labor stays artificially high and businesses choose not to hire unless they absolutely have to.

Increased unemployment results in increased reliance on government support which adds additional stresses to the social welfare systems that are paid for by tax dollars.  This gives the government two immediate choices:  They are to essentially print more money which can be inflationary or to raise taxes; further raising the costs of business which are passed on to consumers who are already paying higher taxes.

Of course there is the third option of mandated "workfare" where the government through tax breaks and sanctions forces businesses to hire these individuals and pay their wages.  (Some of the Obama ads that I saw during the campaign relating to jobs going overseas lead me to believe this would be his administration's choice, but that is just my opinion.)  The problem with this approach is that it results in U.S. businesses being at a competitive disadvantage with foreign competition because higher labor costs.  Consumers in general have proven that given a choice between country of origin or price as a deciding factor in making a purchase; price usually wins.  As the businesses lose money, they become faced with a choice to either close or move their operations, in their entirity, to a more business-friendly location.  Neither choice is good for their employees.

I will admit the future is not necessarily all gloomy.  The non-business tax reductions Obama has proposed could actually have an effect similar to Bush's stimulus checks.  How these factors would interact to effect the economy is something that bears watching as does the actions taken regarding the expiring tax cuts from 2001 and 2003.

Additionally, I take hope in the fact that he seems interested in bringing back a lot of Clintonites.  While I couldn't stand Bill, I have to admit that he handled the economy fairly well.  With some of the same people/philosophies in place, Obama could do so as well.

Reinstating the assault weapons ban is an example of total stupidity.

Anyone who knows anything about firearms realizes that law does nothing for crime.

Now, if it banned handguns, I would be all for it.

Yes, I said total ban on handguns.