Obama Nominates A New Supreme Court Justice

[UNTflyer]

I sort of doubt it.... but it will be to try and correct the mess Bush left...

Well, Obama is on pace to shatter the record... but we'll excuse it by claiming it's needed to "correct the mess Bush left". It's a talking point that's rarely been challenged over the past 100+ days, so I will.

How, EXACTLY, did Bush cause the recession?

[KingDL1]

I sort of doubt it.... but it will be to try and correct the mess Bush left... beside... Bush proposed and signed the first bailout. At least O did not cause this mess and he hasn't claimed to be the ultimate conservative. Face reality... he did terrible and now we have a big mess.

Bush is not my favorite by any means but I think he did OK, his biggest failing was he did not even attempt any Public Image Control and allowed much of the media to run all over him. He stayed the course which I admire. Though his failure to control his Public Image is what hammered the Republican party. I think Obama is doing more for the Republican party then McCain could have ever hoped to do in a hundred years. Things will be bright for mid-term elections

[Green Guy Bass]

Well, Obama is on pace to shatter the record... but we'll excuse it by claiming it's needed to "correct the mess Bush left". It's a talking point that's rarely been challenged over the past 100+ days, so I will.

How, EXACTLY, did Bush cause the recession?

By starting a war and bleeding our taxpayers out of over 800 Billion dollars and counting. Sucks doesn't it?

[Mean Green 93-98]

By starting a war and bleeding our taxpayers out of over 800 Billion dollars and counting. Sucks doesn't it?

Do you really think the war started the recession? Then why did the recession wait over six years to start? Does anyone who knows jack about economics actually agree with you?

And if bleeding the taxpayers out of 800 billion dollars over the course of several years caused a recession, what will bleeding them out of that much in one spending bill cause?

[eulesseagle]

WOW --- what a terrible misuse or distortions of statistics.... The Supreme Court only heard 5 of her cases and overturned 3..... That is ignoring the ones that were appealed and the appeal quickly denied because they were absolutely correct. Looking at it that way, it is down to less than 2%.

--That is almost as bad as some an advertisement I heard that complained that half of the students in America are below average. (of course they are, what does average mean!! )

I teach stat. You need to analyze any stat you hear to see if there are any nutty flaws or misrepresentations.

obviously, i meant to type in the s.c.. i really do not think anyone, maybe, in the legal profession could have 60% of their decisions overturned. heck, she may have one more with the one currently pending with the supremes.

[UNTflyer]

By starting a war and bleeding our taxpayers out of over 800 Billion dollars and counting. Sucks doesn't it?

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit

If deficits under Bush caused a recession (and they didn't) then Obama's deficits should cause a full blown global depression, right?

So I ask the question again...

How, EXACTLY, did Bush cause the recession?

Is it possible, just possible mind you... that the recession was caused by what causes every recession? The decline is economic activity by consumers?

Edited May 28, 2009 by UNTflyer

[Green Guy Bass]

Do you really think the war started the recession? Then why did the recession wait over six years to start? Does anyone who knows jack about economics actually agree with you?

And if bleeding the taxpayers out of 800 billion dollars over the course of several years caused a recession, what will bleeding them out of that much in one spending bill cause?

Obviously there are a lot of factors that helped contribute to the current mess that have been building over the past 20-30 years. There are certain things in our economy that were bound to bottom out at some point. I know you want to pounce on Obama for a spending bill that is trying to help generate some momentum, but you can't defend wasting a ton of money on a questionable war. And the question was aked what did Bush do to help us fall into a recession. I had a pretty obvious answer. Also I wouldn't call on the help of economics experts, they appear on Meet the Press, CNN, Fox News, the BBC news and the like - and they have no clear cut answers to help us get out of this mess. Obama doesn't, McCain wouldn't, Winston Churchill would probably be speechless, and if Jesus is too smart to coemback right now, because he would catch some hell for this too.

[UNTflyer]

Obviously there are a lot of factors that helped contribute to the current mess that have been building over the past 20-30 years. There are certain things in our economy that were bound to bottom out at some point. I know you want to pounce on Obama for a spending bill that is trying to help generate some momentum, but you can't defend wasting a ton of money on a questionable war. And the question was aked what did Bush do to help us fall into a recession. I had a pretty obvious answer. Also I wouldn't call on the help of economics experts, they appear on Meet the Press, CNN, Fox News, the BBC news and the like - and they have no clear cut answers to help us get out of this mess. Obama doesn't, McCain wouldn't, Winston Churchill would probably be speechless, and if Jesus is too smart to coemback right now, because he would catch some hell for this too.

You just cannot say that spending money, whether it was on a questionable war or a justified war or a war with Martians, caused a recession!!! It is the spending of money, and that creates commerce! A recession by definition is when commerce ceases to expand.

Bush didn't send soldiers to Iraq and burn $800 billion in a huge pile in front of Saddam's palace. And most of that money was for reconstruction. Where did the materials for that come from? Certainly not at the Baghdad Home Depot! American and European materials were used, American and European contractors, American and European services.

[Green Guy Bass]

You just cannot say that spending money, whether it was on a questionable war or a justified war or a war with Martians, caused a recession!!! It is the spending of money, and that creates commerce! A recession by definition is when commerce ceases to expand.

Bush didn't send soldiers to Iraq and burn $800 billion in a huge pile in front of Saddam's palace. And most of that money was for reconstruction. Where did the materials for that come from? Certainly not at the Baghdad Home Depot! American and European materials were used, American and European contractors, American and European services.

So we would be in the exact same economic situation if we never went to war with Iraq? C'mon dude. We are all smarter than that.

[UNTflyer]

I'll answer my question, since GGB is too blinded by Bush Hate to offer a sensible answer.

The. Credit. Market. Is. Dry.

Simple as that. Businesses expand through the use of credit, and there is no money to borrow.

So what caused the credit market to dry up? Mostly the toxic mortgages sold as securities, and the panic that started when Fannie and Freddie failed.

So what caused Fannie and Freddie to fail? Decades of mismanagement by Congress, during which time both Republicans and Democrats had oversight and looked the other way.

Edited May 28, 2009 by UNTflyer

[Green Guy Bass]

I'll answer my question, since GGB is too blinded by Bush Hate to offer a sensible answer.

The. Credit. Market. Is. Dry.

Simple as that. Businesses expand through the use of credit, and there is no money to borrow.

So what caused the credit market to dry up? Mostly the toxic mortgages sold as securities, and the panic that started when Fannie and Freddie failed.

So what caused Fannie and Freddie to fail? Decades of mismanagement by Congress, during which time both Republicans and Democrats had oversight and looked the other way.

Look dude I know all of that, if you actually ready one of my previous posts I said that there were a number of factors that helped lead to the recession. Not just the war. If anyone opens a newspaper or turns on the TV they know that the credit market looks like a waste-land. You really think I am so dumb that I believe that the war is the sole cause of our econimic tailspin?? But one can't ignore the fact that hemmoraging money on a relatively fruitless war was a bad idea for the economy. The credit crisis, the housing market, and a number of other things are probably bigger more natural factors. I agree our government has effed up royally here over the past 25 years. Deregulating the banks was also a massive f up, but some people got rich, and I guess that is all that really mattered to those in power. A buch of old rich white guys had a money grab over the better part of 20 years and we are all paying for it now.

[eulesseagle]

Look dude I know all of that, if you actually ready one of my previous posts I said that there were a number of factors that helped lead to the recession. Not just the war. If anyone opens a newspaper or turns on the TV they know that the credit market looks like a waste-land. You really think I am so dumb that I believe that the war is the sole cause of our econimic tailspin?? But one can't ignore the fact that hemmoraging money on a relatively fruitless war was a bad idea for the economy. The credit crisis, the housing market, and a number of other things are probably bigger more natural factors. I agree our government has effed up royally here over the past 25 years. Deregulating the banks was also a massive f up, but some people got rich, and I guess that is all that really mattered to those in power. A buch of old rich white guys had a money grab over the better part of 20 years and we are all paying for it now.

GGB-

I am afraid that UNTFlyer has the correct analysis. The "ONLY" people that you can blame is ----Congress---- for allowing all this to happen. Congress passed the rules/regulations/legislation for our current situation....both Dems & Republicans....for a number of years, 20, 25, 30, 40...whatever stats you want to use. You might say that Congress are the "soiled doves" / "ladies of the evening" of the special interest groups that give lavishly to their favorite "soiled dove." If people got rich in these business markets.....blame Congress. Really blame the public for electing and re-electing these "professional politicians."

[oldguystudent]

The "ONLY" people that you can blame is ----Congress---- for allowing all this to happen.

My God EE! Twice in one week we agree? Next thing you know, this whole spread offense thing will be a 10 game winning strategy!

It does bring to question one thing for me though. Just how much influence does any president really wield? It almost seems like the only thing that matters regarding which side the president is on is which side of congressional legislation gets signed into law.

[Green Guy Bass]

GGB-

I am afraid that UNTFlyer has the correct analysis. The "ONLY" people that you can blame is ----Congress---- for allowing all this to happen. Congress passed the rules/regulations/legislation for our current situation....both Dems & Republicans....for a number of years, 20, 25, 30, 40...whatever stats you want to use. You might say that Congress are the "soiled doves" / "ladies of the evening" of the special interest groups that give lavishly to their favorite "soiled dove." If people got rich in these business markets.....blame Congress. Really blame the public for electing and re-electing these "professional politicians."

To that - what politicians can we trust at the national level?

[FirefightnRick]

Sotomayor member of La Raza.

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit

If deficits under Bush caused a recession (and they didn't) then Obama's deficits should cause a full blown global depression, right?

So I ask the question again...

How, EXACTLY, did Bush cause the recession?

Is it possible, just possible mind you... that the recession was caused by what causes every recession? The decline is economic activity by consumers?

Bush was projected to have surpluses and did not not happen either... I believe his party was in control of Congress for his first six years... pick one. He did have the power of veto plus despite the budget overruns he kept wanting more and more tax cuts for the wealthy [ I doubt either of us make millions in capital gains* every year.. that is who got the BIG breaks, not us. ] . Taking more and more restrictions off financial institutions did not help either..... of course kids in a classroom don't behave all that well or learn much if no adult monitors their activities. Not surprisingly small banks who often have owners running them do not have much problem.. just the huge financial ones in which the directors have little personal funds at stake (except their huge bonuses which they seemed to get even if their institution failed ). These needed to be watched...

---According to the local paper today (very GOP oriented -- I am in Midland. home of Craddick and Bush ) that only 22% of Americans now claim to be Republicans after the Liberal Bush years. The decline in economic activity was largely triggered by irresponsible lending practices. which caued people to get into financial trouble which led less spending and still more problems.

*The low capitol gains rate could have been made so that rate applied to the first $100,000 or whatever in capitol gains (I doubt either of us make that in just capitol gains every year )--- but they weren't... The Billionaires managed to keep millions more every year and the deficit soared. Oddly they profited a lot in the short run but in the long run they have suffered the most... with the 5000 drop in the DOW that occured in 2008 (not 2009) .

Give it up... you just can't put lipstick on a pig and make a beauty queen.

Edited May 29, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulesseagle]

oldguystudent-

we probably agree more than what you think. i will have to agree that you, untflyer and some others are of like minds on these most important politically charged and decisive issues of our time.

how much power does the president have? with presidential powers they can circumnavigate anything. as we all know the three branches of govt are to provide a checks and balance system. is that system broken? yep. does the public care? nope. does congress care? nope....heck, a true checks and balance system would would bring government to a snails pace (not a bad idea). Personally, the S.C. needs to be more pro active in reviewing congressional measures before they become law to determine their constitutionality.

____________

GGB-

"trust politicians at your own risk." example: look at us senator coryin, r-tx......told the people of our fair state in a television ad while he was in his tradional cowboy garb looking over some fine desert land and said that he was NOT going to vote for the stimulus plan (incidently, kay bailey said the same thing)......what happens?? both vote FOR the stimulus after what both said, and i paraphrase,...."much thought." i have that much thought when i am in the "thrown room reading the sports page" and getting ready to make my morning sacrafice to the porcile god.

fortunately, in tarrant county, we have some decent represenatives to congress which kinda indicates conservative morals. at least we DO NOT re-elect folks such a Peloci, Reid, Murtha and other radical "porkers."

[UNT90]

---I can't remember the number but it was between 150-200 cases she has decided in her current position. The low number of cases reviewed by the S.C. seem to be a good thing.. A lousy judge making wrong decisions would have a very large numbers accepted by the Supreme Court for review and to be overturned.. Your logic completely fails with me.

Her current position is as a member of one of the Curcuit Court of Appeals. Like I said, these would not be "her" decisions, because the decision would be decided by a panel of judges on that CCA. Therefore, she would have a majority of Judges on that court in agreeance with her. I'm thinking the 5 cases must be from her tenure as a US District Judge, as these would be the only decisions that she made completely on her own. Again, how long was her tenure as a US DIstrict Judge and, compared to the same time period of other US District Judges, were 5 cases a lot or a little for the SC to review?

The only way this could involve her CCA service would be if she was the swing vote on these 5 cases that went before the supreme court.

[UNTflyer]

more and more tax cuts for the wealthy....

Taking more and more restrictions off financial institutions did not help either

Same old talking points...

First, the wealthy pay 90% of the taxes in this country, so when taxes are cut guess who gets the bulk of the cut? Despite the tax cuts, revenues increased every single year of the Bush presidency. Tax cuts were not the problem. BTW, those tax cuts helped me too - my taxes dropped about $1400 a year.

And what restrictions were taken off financial institutions? Be specific and don't parrot the talking points. Can you tell me specifically what restrictions were removed? This has been repeated ad nauseum. I have posted links and news stories that show that financial regulations actually increased during the Bush presidency, but I'll give you the chance to tell us what specific regulations were lifted by Bush.

[CMJ]

When he was at the lower courts, Alito was reversed twice. Of couse he was only reviewed by the Supremes twice.

So that's 100%.

Should he be impeached?

[GreenBat]

When he was at the lower courts, Alito was reversed twice. Of couse he was only reviewed by the Supremes twice.

So that's 100%.

Should he be impeached?

LOL!!!

[UNT90]

When he was at the lower courts, Alito was reversed twice. Of couse he was only reviewed by the Supremes twice.

So that's 100%.

Should he be impeached?

Apparently, you read none of my previous posts.

[CMJ]

Apparently, you read none of my previous posts.

I wasn't really replying you man. I was more speaking to some of the other conservatives were were whining about her rate of being overturned.

On this case, you've been very levelheaded.

I did a bit of research to address your earlier question about whether she was overturned as just a District or also a Circuit Judge and found she was reviewed by the SCOTUS on both.

Edited May 29, 2009 by CMJ

[UNTflyer]

Once in a while, a hollywood actor gets it:

yzdkPeo0H3A

[Green Guy Bass]

Once in a while, a hollywood actor gets it:

yzdkPeo0H3A

A conservative on Fox News?? I'll be damned.