If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Obama persists in his propaganda. Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs"   (townhall.com) divider line 383
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 02:44:26 PM

m00: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.

What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


You'd have them actually hire people, then apply for the tax benefit. This is not, in and of itself, a terrible idea, but it misses a larger point: if a business doesn't need to hire, they won't hire, regardless of the tax benefits they might get.
 
2014-01-10 02:44:36 PM

m00: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.

What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


This chart will help...
i41.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-10 02:45:18 PM
What would help the economy and job creation more would be tax cuts so 'makers' could take those savings and invest in off-shore bank accounts, I'm told by prominent farkers.
 
2014-01-10 02:45:18 PM

farkstorm: Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!


What do you think the rationale behind tax cuts, tax rebates, and economic stimulus is?
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:46:03 PM

qorkfiend: I see no mention of poor, rural folks who have voted Republican since the Johnson Administration; clearly they are losing the War on Poverty, as well. It's almost as if the partisan explanation you're trying to shoehorn into the discussion doesn't exist.


I was posing a counter-example to the assertion of the previous post "Democrats: War on Poverty / Republicans: War on the Poor / this is pretty much all you need to know"

But yah, I'm the one shoehorning in partisanship.
 
2014-01-10 02:47:01 PM

m00: qorkfiend: I see no mention of poor, rural folks who have voted Republican since the Johnson Administration; clearly they are losing the War on Poverty, as well. It's almost as if the partisan explanation you're trying to shoehorn into the discussion doesn't exist.

I was posing a counter-example to the assertion of the previous post "Democrats: War on Poverty / Republicans: War on the Poor / this is pretty much all you need to know"

But yah, I'm the one shoehorning in partisanship.


Um, ok?
 
2014-01-10 02:47:08 PM

A Cave Geek: So here's what I don't get about this:

Premise 1:  Extending unemployment insurance benefits does not create jobs
Premise 2:  People with no income have a strong incentive to acquire one.
Premise 3:  People with low income have no incentive to increase their income through work.

Conclusion:  We should not extend unemployment benefits.

It's Premise 3 that I take issue with. (Well I also take issue with premise 1, but that's another post)  People who have low income have a very strong incentive to increase their income.  I'll grant you that the amount of money made from minimum wage jobs don't really make it worth their while, in many cases.  But wouldn't that be an argument FOR raising the minimum wage?  Not an argument AGAINST extending unemployment benefits?

And anyone who's tried to make ends meet on minimum wage would more than certainly take issue with the idea that it provides no incentive to find a higher-paying job.


I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system.  That makes sense.  The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.
 
2014-01-10 02:48:19 PM

qorkfiend: It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that ending unemployment benefits would not have a significant negative impact on the economy.


Do you think I am advocating NOT giving unemployment benefits? If so, you might want to give my comments so far a run through again before posting further.

m00: What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


...the requirement that they hire someone in order to get the breaks in the first place? I'm not saying we pay them money, I'm saying we give them a tax holiday WHEN they HAVE hired someone. What they do with the savings is largely irrelevant, so long as the jobs are created.

Mercutio74: Well, there's an intermediate step that's generally not mentioned. Robust (but not excessive) unemployment benefits strengthens the economy and a stronger economy produces jobs.


As we have discussed above, it doesn't make the economy BETTER. It just helps keep the economy from getting as worse as it would otherwise. This is an important distinction.
 
2014-01-10 02:49:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.


I did read your whole post. Demand for products and services from consumers is what produces employment. Giving a consumer that can't find work for 2 years benefits creates demand for products and services. No business is going to hire people just because you gave them a tax cut if they don't have demand for whatever they are selling.
 
2014-01-10 02:49:49 PM

mrshowrules: I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system. That makes sense. The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.


That's the big point here.  Unemployment is a bandage.  But you have to stop cutting yourself if you want to heal.  The GOP either doesn't get this, or just doesn't care.
 
2014-01-10 02:50:18 PM

qorkfiend: farkstorm: Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!

What do you think the rationale behind tax cuts, tax rebates, and economic stimulus is?


And bank bailouts and tax loopholes and general corporate welfare,

But it's the green stamp queens who are bleeding us dry!
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:52:26 PM

odinsposse: Aren't pretty much all cities Democratic? What big Republican city are we comparing DC to?


Cities with Republican Mayors:
Albuquerque
Indianapolis
Fresno
Mesa
Miami
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Virginia Beach

So you're right that vast majority of large cities are Democrat. I'm genuinely unsure what that means with respect to the urban poverty issue... maybe poverty is unrelated to economic policy, or both parties have economic policies that contribute to poverty.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: As we have discussed above, it doesn't make the economy BETTER. It just helps keep the economy from getting as worse as it would otherwise. This is an important distinction.


I guess that hair gets split over how much benefit there is to money moving through the economy.  There's a secondary benefit when money is spent on goods and services and I think it's clear that no one's squirrelling away their unemployment checks.  That stuff gets spent and then some.

Economists generally look at unemployment benefits as having a net beneficial effect on the economy so I'm inclined to go with their analysis.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:04 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I'm saying we give them a tax holiday WHEN they HAVE hired someone. What they do with the savings is largely irrelevant, so long as the jobs are created.


Businesses that can meet demand with their current workforce aren't going to hire anyone, even if they get a tax break for it.
Businesses that can't meet demand with their current workforce will hire people, even if they don't get a tax break for it.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:11 PM

m00: For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?


DC is a horrible example to use. Let's start with these two reasons:
-Marion Barry
-Congress (which still has an insane amount of control over DC, unlike the relationship of every other city in the country to the Feds or the state)

Feel free to add more.

// and there are non-Democrats in Council seats: David Grosso (at-large, so not elected by a specific Ward) and David Catania (also at-large)
// so, 12 of 14 are Democrats
// Republicans run here, it's just tough with a message of "Have you tried NOT being [poor|black|gay]?"
 
2014-01-10 02:54:14 PM

m00: or both parties have economic policies that contribute to poverty.


Winner!
 
2014-01-10 02:55:25 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.



Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back.
 
2014-01-10 02:56:00 PM
Townhall is such a misnomer.

No one with any levelheaded sense would be at one of theirs.
 
2014-01-10 02:56:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: BojanglesPaladin: And yes, yes you will need to biatch about paying taxes now. At a certain point, if it get high enough, (somewhere around the 35% bracket) you will also begin to feel the urge to vote Republican. This urge can vary. Unless you currently live in a home that can be made mobile, go mudding in a pick up truck, or have an American, Confederate, or Revolutionary flag, an eagle, or the Alamo tattooed anywhere on your body in which case income is irrelevant and you likely already do.

Nice.

I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)

Also, difficulty: DC. I'll be a liberal long after the last union member is strangled by the entrails of the last homosexual. :)


If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun. Very well made, very accurate and very cool. Note that the calibre isn't necessarily the limiter on the frame size. I have handled 9mm handguns that had much bigger grip size than some .40s. You best bet is to try a bunch of different models and makes in different calibres. Some makes also allow for interchangeable backstraps that can change the size of the grip.
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:56:46 PM

farkstorm: Why limit the goodness to the unemployed? Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!


This is the economic theory, yes. Unfortunately "free money for everybody" translates to "free money for those wealthy enough to afford lobbyists"
 
2014-01-10 02:57:31 PM

Mercutio74: mrshowrules: I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system. That makes sense. The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.

That's the big point here.  Unemployment is a bandage.  But you have to stop cutting yourself if you want to heal.  The GOP either doesn't get this, or just doesn't care.



Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, that's self-defeathing socialism and un-American.
 
2014-01-10 03:02:45 PM

m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?


You think that 50% of the country is republican?


Mittens will be confused as to how he only got 60mm votes.
 
2014-01-10 03:02:55 PM

Lord_Baull: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.


Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back.


www.gothereforeministries.org

Page 293.  "When determining whether or not your business needs to hire more employees, first, verify your effective tax rate.  If it is lower than the year before, hire.  Higher than the hear before fire.  The same, you probably don't want to take any action as it relates to hiring or firing."
 
2014-01-10 03:04:57 PM

Dr Dreidel: I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)


.40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

.02¢
 
2014-01-10 03:07:56 PM

m00: iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?

Well, we use a fiat currency system so it's created out of thin air. Technically the money comes out of our credit, less technically it comes from future generations. But taxes don't actually pay for anything. How could they? We collect taxes for a fiscal year after the money is paid out.

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Either it wouldn't exist, or it would go to into the off-shore accounts of hedge fund managers.

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.

It's not necessarily a net benefit. But I think in most cases preventing a bunch of homeless, starving families certainly does.


That is what a lot of conservatives do not seem to understand.  They talk about the government taking "their money", "you can't spend your way into prosperity", and fighting "redistribution of wealth".  They fail to realize that the money is worthless without the government's backing, that backing/value depends on the production ability of the nation, and that production ability works best when money is redistributed to the areas it is needed.  You create more consumers which creates demand.  Demand increases the value of products produced which increases the GNP, and that is how you build the wealth which gives value to a fiat currency.

Supply side economics kind of does the opposite.  Not enough of the wealth ever seems to get to the consumer due to stagnant wages; and the side effect is the demand fails to materialize for the increased production, which lowers the value of the goods produced.
 
2014-01-10 03:09:03 PM

qorkfiend: Businesses that can meet demand with their current workforce aren't going to hire anyone, even if they get a tax break for it.Businesses that can't meet demand with their current workforce will hire people, even if they don't get a tax break for it.


Headso: Demand for products and services from consumers is what produces employment. Giving a consumer that can't find work for 2 years benefits creates demand for products and services. No business is going to hire people just because you gave them a tax cut if they don't have demand for whatever they are selling.


And surely you agree that what is even BETTER than those same people having a fraction of their previous income to put into the economy is for them to have their previous income or better? And that as MORE people put MORE of that income into the economy MORE businesses will need to hire MORE employees?

The issue here is that unemployment benefits help maintain the status quo and/or prevent a further downward slide. But unemployment benefits are LESS than employment. So we need more employment. Obviously, we aren't going to spontaneously generate ALL the jobs at once, but what *IS* clear is that 6 years of paying long term unemployment benefits isn't INCREASING demand. Obviously. It's LESS than the previous status quo.

It's weird that you guys seem to think that continuing to make sure that LESS money than before going into the economy will somehow magically cause MORE economic growth. Especially as we can see that it's just not.

The economy is no longer in freefall. That's great, and the extended unemployment benefits are a significant part of the reason for this. Now it's time to put resources toward increasing growth. There are plenty of companies who have put of growth, or held back. That's why so many companies are sitting on larger and larger cash reserves for instance. And it's why we need to focus on the SMB businesses. give those companies who are on the verge of hiring a reason to do so NOW, not "at some point, based on how things go".

Hell, get radical. Give any company with less than 50 employees and automatic $10,000 tax write-off for every additional employee that is there a year later.

The point is that JOBS are better for the economy than unemployment benefits, and unemployment benefits do not INCREASE demand.
 
2014-01-10 03:10:55 PM

Lord_Baull: Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back


Did you have a point to make? I don't recall getting any tax breaks for hiring staff during those years.
 
2014-01-10 03:12:27 PM
You know, as someone who spent the better part of the last five years unemployed or underemployed, I'd like to extend a hearty "Fark You" to every single politician bloviating about how unemployment insurance is a disincentive to find work.

Seriously, fark you and yours.
 
Bf+
2014-01-10 03:14:19 PM

impaler: How can we ever expect America's younger generations to preserve America's greatness when the president of this nation keeps preaching damaging economic myths

Says the assholes who preach the Trickle Down Economics religion.



I see we're done here.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And surely you agree that what is even BETTER than those same people having a fraction of their previous income to put into the economy is for them to have their previous income or better? And that as MORE people put MORE of that income into the economy MORE businesses will need to hire MORE employees?


Sure it would better but you can't force companies to hire people, they will when demand for their product or service dictates they should.

 It's weird that you guys seem to think that continuing to make sure that LESS money than before going into the economy will somehow magically cause MORE economic growth. Especially as we can see that it's just not.

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?
 
2014-01-10 03:16:14 PM

Psylence: Dr Dreidel: I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)

.40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

.02¢


Perceived recoil also has a lot to do with the model of handgun as well. A metal framed pistol will have less recoil than a polymer framed. If the bore axis is set lower to the frame the recoil moves the pistol upwards less and back into the hand more. Practice and grip will also allow you to get back on target quickly and easily. The right pistol with the right grip in the right hands will be accurate regardless of calibre. Not to toot my own horn, but I shoot a .40 in IPSC and I am at least as accurate as 9mm shooters in my class (B).

.02¢ as well.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:35 PM

Dr Dreidel: I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)


I'm not as gun guy AT ALL, but I don't think grip size is tied to caliber. I have big 'ol frog hands and I found both the 9mm and .45 Glocks to be too small, requiring a grip extender to even be workable. I went with a Springfield which had a longer grip and the added benefit of a double safety (grip and trigger). Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.
 
m00
2014-01-10 03:16:49 PM

Tigger: You think that 50% of the country is republican?


Mittens will be confused as to how he only got 60mm votes.


48% of votes went for Romney Yes, popular vote is usually very close. Party self-identification is roughly equal.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:53 PM
Interesting employment  report.pdf:

- 66% of low-wage workers are employed by large corporations with 100+ employees
- Top exec compensation averaged $9M
- Dividends/share buybacks totaled $174M
- Of the 50 largest, almost all were profitable, and 75% "have higher revenues now than before the recession"
- McDonalds saw a 130% increase in profits over the last 4 fiscal years

I don't think a minimum wage hike is a great idea, not unless it's paid for with salary/bonus cuts for top execs.
 
2014-01-10 03:21:41 PM

Headso: You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?


I understand. But given a choice between unemployment for the EXTRA, supplemental period (out to two years) and that same money producing actual jobs, I would go with spending the money to get jobs.

Here's a question for you. How many people are we talking about here anyway? Most people who get unemployment have it for an average of, what? 6 months? 9 months? How many people are still on it nearly two years later? And how many have just fallen off unemployment entirely, already producing this negative economic impact?

People tend to throw out the TOTAL number of people on unemployment, but we are really just talking about a percentage of people on unemployment. So what are the numbers here?
 
2014-01-10 03:22:23 PM
mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.
 
2014-01-10 03:22:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Lord_Baull: Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back

Did you have a point to make? I don't recall getting any tax breaks for hiring staff during those years.



Are you being purposefully obtuse? The Bush Tax breaks were sold to the public as necessary for 'makers' to be able to hire more. Tax cuts = more jobs.
 
2014-01-10 03:24:33 PM
lol reagan
 
2014-01-10 03:24:56 PM

Dr Dreidel: m00: For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?

DC is a horrible example to use. Let's start with these two reasons:
-Marion Barry
-Congress (which still has an insane amount of control over DC, unlike the relationship of every other city in the country to the Feds or the state)

Feel free to add more.

// and there are non-Democrats in Council seats: David Grosso (at-large, so not elected by a specific Ward) and David Catania (also at-large)
// so, 12 of 14 are Democrats
// Republicans run here, it's just tough with a message of "Have you tried NOT being [poor|black|gay]?"


BS, DC is a great example.

Anyone who wants to claim DC is all poverty obviously doesn't understand quite what is considered DC.

Is SE poor as crap, yes. But NW is one of the priciest places to live in the country.
 
2014-01-10 03:25:37 PM

Mouldy Squid: If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun.


Psylence: .40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...


BojanglesPaladin: Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.


Looks like I'd need a grip extender (though I should think "widener" is the better noun, yes?). I'm not as concerned about accuracy since I'll only be using it for target practice, which sounds weird, but I figure as long as it's sighted properly, I'll get more accurate with more range time.

And my range (On Target, near Ft Meade, MD - anyone know of anything comparable in NOVA?) does indeed have a wide assortment, though boxen of .40s are $5-10 cheaper than .45s).

Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).
 
2014-01-10 03:29:26 PM

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


Would have helped if congress considered any of the jobs bills instead of trying to repeal Obamacare or enact abortion restrictions.

Oh hey, that's YOUR team acting like assholes.  SHOCKER!
 
2014-01-10 03:30:13 PM

Brick-House: I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


I'm sure Iran would chip in for that operation.
 
2014-01-10 03:31:07 PM

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]


"At the end of each recession that each inherited."


Are you purposefully ignoring the decline of jobs for additional 7-12 months after your Obama starting point, and the complete obstructionism from the GOP over the course of his entire administration?
 
2014-01-10 03:31:46 PM

INeedAName: BS, DC is a great example.

Anyone who wants to claim DC is all poverty obviously doesn't understand quite what is considered DC.

Is SE poor as crap, yes. But NW is one of the priciest places to live in the country.


I live in NW (DuPont Circle). Also, I said nothing about poverty.

One of the biggest problems with DC is meddling by Congress - they retain veto power over ALL laws passed by the Council (and could, in theory, dissolve the DC government entirely) - while at the same time being subject to ZERO whining from representatives from it.

St Louis, NY, LA, Chicago...all of them have a Rep in Congress that has some sway (almost by virtue of the millions of voters that live in those districts). DC does not, unlike every other city in America. For that reason (and Marion Barry still having lots of sway here for some unfathomable reason), DC is a bad city to compare to.
 
2014-01-10 03:32:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?

I understand. But given a choice between unemployment for the EXTRA, supplemental period (out to two years) and that same money producing actual jobs, I would go with spending the money to get jobs.


Spend the money how to get the jobs? what demand are you creating to make companies hire? We know unemployment creates demand just from the simple fact that people gotta eat...
 
2014-01-10 03:33:19 PM

Dr Dreidel: Mouldy Squid: If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun.

Psylence: .40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

BojanglesPaladin: Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.

Looks like I'd need a grip extender (though I should think "widener" is the better noun, yes?). I'm not as concerned about accuracy since I'll only be using it for target practice, which sounds weird, but I figure as long as it's sighted properly, I'll get more accurate with more range time.

And my range (On Target, near Ft Meade, MD - anyone know of anything comparable in NOVA?) does indeed have a wide assortment, though boxen of .40s are $5-10 cheaper than .45s).

Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).


Ask your gun dealer about models with "interchangeable backstraps". There are several on the market now, including S&W (the M&P). I am not a big fan of polymer frames so I get to miss out on the "grip-size-changiness" (although I am looking at getting a Walther P99 in .40). Metal frames are heavier, sure, but I am not and LEO and don't carry a pistol around all day (Canadian so I don't get concealed carry either). My personal favourite is the CZ75. You can't go wrong with a SIG, but they are IMHO over priced for what you get.
 
2014-01-10 03:33:54 PM

Brick-House: Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


Lol... Are you actually old enough to remember the Reagan years?


Yes, indeed, Mr. "I do not recall" would have bee on top of it... *rolls eyes*
 
2014-01-10 03:34:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).


Great, you committed statutory rape and we all had to watch.  Thanks for that.
 
2014-01-10 03:35:00 PM
www.thereformedbroker.com

A better job creation investment to place unemployment checks
 
2014-01-10 03:37:02 PM

Lord_Baull: Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]


"At the end of each recession that each inherited."

Are you purposefully ignoring the decline of jobs for additional 7-12 months after your Obama starting point, and the complete obstructionism from the GOP over the course of his entire administration?


He's a Brick....
...
...
House!

Derpy, derpy.  He's letting it all hang out!
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report