Trump tweet angers survivors of Parkland shooting

Susan Foster - You don't understand. When you are in the leadership position as FPO was, you accept "all" responsibility for everything performed, or not performed, by your people. FPO was in a position to fix all this and not let it get out of control; it happened under his watch. Most civilians can't understand this principle, heck most of our veterans here don't remember it either. :)

SSgt Christopher Brose - I don't rant about it as much as you do, but that doesn't mean I don't care. I am not complaining about DT--I'm just skeptical on how big the pie will be. I give Obama credit for pulling us out of one of the deepest recessions we've ever been in, and I certainly didn't expect us to do it and not increase the deficit. I remember what a mess it was in late 2008. By the time he left, the economic trend was up and the unemployment rate was almost as good as it is today, a year later. He inherited the payments from a long war--and I understand the outlays concept in the federal budget process. It's like living on a credit card for years, the interest builds, and then you never pay down what you owe, and what we purchased in late Bush years (overseas operations--counted separately) rolled on like a wave and he was the beneficiary (we were). Trends don't begin or stop with a President (thank goodness), and they have momentum. It was 2012 before we saw a glimmer. As far as a tax cut, they are seldom used when the economy is humming already, but when it needs a jumpstart (remember Bush tax cuts?). The rationale here is that doing it when the economy is good is going to jump it to a higher level. There are two schools of thought: The (right-leaning) Tax Foundation believes that tax cuts can boost GDP, and it rejects the notion that increased government borrowing will harm the economy by “crowding out” investment. The folks behind the Penn Wharton Budget Model, (who often collaborate with the left-leaning Tax Policy Center) believe the crowd-out effect is very real and can cancel out the growth inspired by tax cuts. By the way, I've learned most of what I have during the debates from the right-leaning pubs and articles. For a good, conservative view on things, I always read National Review, who look at the middle concept (JCT). Their latest estimate said: "What does seem clear is that a $1.5 trillion cut will be unlikely to fully pay for itself anytime soon--especially when the bill includes obvious gimmicks such as making all the individual tax cuts expire after 2025." I am all for tax cuts, especially individual ones, but I personally believe we will find out we've cut the corporate taxes too much, and future Congresses will have to adjust for that. To me, it's like borrowing $100k and taking a significant pay cut and expecting my overtime to make up for it. I am much less impressed than you that we have a businessman for POTUS (who declared bankruptcy so much) who knows what he's doing and is so smart, he will show us they are all wrong and the GDP will jump much faster and higher than the conservative economists believe. He doesn't hold the purse strings at all, but I do give him credit for loosening regulations that is increasing our economic trend upwards. I told you I'd always give him credit where due, and I will. This is one debate I fervently hope I lose. I really do hope the economy grows so fast and the pie is so big it makes up for it. But I had always counted on R's to be the fiscally responsible party, and many R's in Congress are concerned just like I am. But I would be glad to say I was wrong.

Susan Foster - It's not just taxes that act as brakes on the economy, burdensome regulations and cumbersome trade deals & international obligations have the same effect. That's why the Trump economy is going to make Obama's look pathetic by comparison, he's doing his best to get rid of all the obstacles. Obama was far more concerned about social engineering than he ever was about the economy.

SSgt Christopher Brose - Yes, I think I pointed that out above, that the burdensome regs he's gotten rid of has helped spur the economy since he hasn't had a budget approved until a couple of weeks ago (which means we haven't bought anything extra militarily), and we were on an upward trend. FPO was at first totally focused on getting us out of a deep recession caused by his predecessor's administration, which did not start to get better until sometime in late 2012. And yes, social engineering was big on his agenda. I hope the economy is going to be robust and strong, and I believe it will. A strong economy is an important part of a good national security strategy, as is defense, but that's certainly not all of it. I would like to see us be economically strong and still care about people, not just those with a lot of money. That's what will make us stronger.

MAJ James Woods - Yes. But was it good quarterbacking? My family has a strong law enforcement background so I got to hear exactly that same sort of discussion surrounding mega f***ups like the incident in question.
Your going to run down whatever I have to say in any case so save yourself the trouble. Thanks.
You sure your not an attorney?

PO3 John Wagner - It's called years of negotiating, problem solving, debate, military investigations, and UCMJ enforcement that teaches one to maintain objectivity, see issues from both sides, focus on facts, don't speculate and jump to conclusions. There's nothing good about Monday night QB'ing to address Sunday's game loss; only lessons learned to apply to the next event. Later.

SSgt Ray Stone - Well, I honestly doubt if the NRA contributes much either way. Politicians and parties fall in and out of favor.
Seems to me they would be foolish to become too involved in our biannual Sesame Street election cycle.
They have better things to do such as keep up with the latest trends to bypass or shut down feel good and poorly thought out panic legislation.
The butterfly effect is a very real thing. Some law may be passed today which allows liberals and other control freaks to chisel the bottom right out of our constitution years hence using their attorneys.
The sentiment expressed in the saying about sharks not eating attorneys as a professional courtesy holds steady and true throughout time.
It is after all the 99% of attorneys that make the 1% look bad.
The only time I enjoy seeing an attorney is when they are closing the casket.

Cpl Jeff N. - Making excuses for him, would you feel the same if he were Muslim?

Gun laws are like padlocks. They only keep honest people honest. A criminal is not going to go anywhere where a background check is required in order to get a gun. Three isn't anyway to regulate the private sale of weapons. If I wanted to sell any one of my long range or semiautomatic weapons, there is no background check required for those. When I make a homemade weapon, there are absolutely no controls there. I just buy the metal stock, mill it to specs and assemble it. No serial numbers. No restrictive laws. The minute they are made they are untraceable.

Ain't that right James?

SSG Warren Swan - They should have weighed the trailers. Probably could have REALLY busted him for an overload charge...... Besides, truckers have fewer legal protections than convicted pedophiles.
Hell, that was 10,000 guns that weren't on the street.
So the guy was a pack rat. Oh well?
Capt Jeff S.

PO3 John Wagner - That's 10,000 weapons we "know of" that weren't on the street. What isn't known is how many were put on the street before, and multiple sites have said that SC is a corridor for illegal weapons sales to the north and Midwest. They didn't catch the guy with a "personal stash", or a "private collection". If there are no serial numbers on them, that is a "personal stash about to be moved and sold at some point". Drug dealers have "personal stashes" until LE gets hold of em, and now your "personal stash" becomes a "For distribution" charge.

Funny...weighing the trailers. Those didn't look like they'd been moved since Elvis was on hos farewell tour, and there is no way to weigh his house.