That took forever, just to half-a** some of it.
:lol:
I don't think I am exaggerating at all. The "threat" isn't just implied, it's clearly stated. "There's a human element and, uh, I hope that's, uh, not forgotten."
What do you think he means by that? What does the "human element" have to do with whether or not the law is constitutional? Nothing. Why do you think he wants the court to remember that there is a human element? It's because he wants them to consider the cost of ruling correctly according to constitutional law. And if they don't (consider that), then they are being inhumane.
There is no way you can twist what he said to imply that he was showing support for the Supreme court to make the correct ruling (according to their own consciences) without regard to the political ramifications of that ruling. He is obviously trying to "influence" the court with his comments and that's not appropriate for any President. He doesn't care what the Constitution says and he thinks his judgment is superior to the justices'.
I want justices to vote based on the law, not based on whatever satisfies their "constituency." Would you prefer that SC justices be appointed for, say, 10 years? That wouldn't be so bad, but if they had to be reappointed every 10 years, I could see Presidents (or Congress) abusing that by only reappointing conservative or liberal justices, depending on who was in power. Now you have introduced the element that if justices don't vote "the right way" they could lose their jobs.
Because justices are appointed for life, they can rule on the law according to their own consciences. They aren't influenced by politics (beyond their own political leanings) and Presidents usually can only replace one or two during a term, so there is less risk of a court leaning too liberal or too conservative.
You may not like the system, but it is the most apolitical, and works better than any alternative would.
continued ...
page 2 ...
They can't do that without eliminating private insurance and putting all of those people out of a job.
We already have a 'healthcare' tax. It's called medicare for the elderly/disabled, and medicaid for the poor. I have no problem with that.
You seem to think that as a conservative, I don't want to pay any taxes. That's not true. I think there are a lot of things that the Federal Govt can do for us and healthcare for the truly needy is one of them.
What I object to is the Govt telling the wealthy and the healthy that they have to buy a product from a private company or they are breaking the law. It's beyond the scope of authority granted to the Federal govt by the Constitution.
And there it is. You favor socialism. I favor increased competition, medical savings accounts, personal responsibility, other measures that can be done to reduce costs and subsidies for the truly needy.
The US has the best medical care in the world. Anyone who is subjected to socialized medicine and the long waits, rationing of healthcare and requirement for govt approval can tell you how much better our health care is. The wealthy who can afford it (because they don't allow private insurance in countries with socialized medicine) always come to the US when they want or need the best care. And you want to eliminate that.
One of the goals of Obamacare is to run private insurance companies out of business. They know that the individual mandate won't cover the increased costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions, and eventually insurance companies will go broke --and you will get your inferior socialized medicine.
I assume you are being facetious here. They can't tell everybody what food to buy or even that they have to buy it.
Okay, if they are saving my life, I'll eat what they tell me to, but don't force me to buy a product I don't need!
continued ...
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...35329030_n.jpg
The problem is not so much that the economy is still bad (and it is), but that he is doing the wrong things to fix it. Reagan cut taxes and (at least initially) reduced federal spending to stimulate the economy. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and eliminate the middle class tax cut. The FICA tax cut is also set to expire at the end of the year. Conservatives are calling it 'taxageddon.' The press called Reagan's plan 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics, but it worked. Even JFK (a democrat) knew that you reduce taxes to stimulate the economy.
When San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) was facing bancrupcy, they saved public transportation by reducing fares. More people started riding, the cost per mile went down and overall revenues went up. Why do you think stores run sales? It's not just to be nice to their customers or to reduce overstock. It's because they make more money.
There is a percentage of people who will not look for work until the UE benefits run out. But Obama has supported those extended benefits, thereby increasing both the number of unemployed and the deficit.
You will have to show me where I am being inconsistent here because I don't see it. When Obama took office the difference between the reported UE rate and the real (U6) rate was less than 2% because the number of long term unemployed was much smaller as a percentage of the total. Now the difference is 6.4% (8.2% reported, 14.6% real U6 numbers).
Not here in Topeka. I have been unemployed for almost 29 months now, and it's not from lack of trying. You just think it is improving because more and more long term unemployed (like me) are no longer being counted.
And Free trade (like free enterprise) is a bad thing?
Yeah, it would be so much better to impose tariffs to artificially restrict trade. We don't want American companies making more money!Quote:
At $248.2 billion for Canada and $163.3 billion for Mexico, they were the top two purchasers of US exports in 2010.
US goods exports to NAFTA in 2010 were $411.5 billion, up 23.4% ($78 billion) from 2009 and 149% from 1994 (the year prior to Uruguay Round) and up 190% from 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA). US exports to NAFTA accounted for 32.2% of overall US exports in 2010.
The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2010 were machinery ($63.3 billion), vehicles (parts) ($56.7 billion), electrical machinery ($56.2 billion), mineral fuel and oil ($26.7 billion), and plastic ($22.6 billion).
US exports of agricultural products to NAFTA countries totaled $31.4 billion in 2010. Leading categories included red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.7 billion); coarse grains ($2.2 million); fresh fruit ($1.9 billion); snack foods (excluding nuts) ($1.8 billion); and fresh vegetables ($1.7 billion).
US exports of private commercial services, excluding military and government, to NAFTA were $63.8 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), down 7% ($4.6 billion) from 2008, but up 125% since 1994 (source)
No it hasn't. it just appears that way because we have stopped counting people whose UE benefits have run out. As it turns out, many analysts believe that the reason more jobs were created in January and February was because of the unusually warm weather. More people were going out and spending money on entertainment and recreation. This led to an unrealistic expectation for March job figures and naturally those expectations weren't met.
And that's putting a positive spin on it.Quote:
In other words, warm weather may have helped create a bit of a rollercoaster effect on the jobs numbers. “Our read is that March is understating the underlying improvement in the labor market, while January and February overstated it,” explains Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight. (source)
I will concede that the economy is slowly improving. It has nowhere to go but up! But I still contend that Obama and the democrats are impeding the recovery. There is much they could have done to accelerate it and they haven't.Quote:
Others have a more skeptical take on the weather theory. “The unusually mild weather may have helped boost payrolls this winter, but we do not think this was a major factor weighing on the March report,” says Daniel Silver, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, in a research note. He points out that the warm weather continued in March and that the number of people who stayed at home because of adverse weather remained low. (same source)
Actually, gas prices just went down by 10 cents a gallon, today, but I'm sure that's an anomaly, No the government doesn't control the oil markets but there are things they can do to influence it. Approving legislation for the Keystone pipeline would be a good start:
How would blocking offshore drilling and other increased drilling help the USA become the world leader in oil distribution? That makes no sense.Quote:
[Mitch McConnell said,] “The Democrat-controlled Senate just turned its back on job creation and energy independence in a single vote by rejecting the bipartisan Hoeven-Lugar amendment. They rejected legislation that would have led to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the thousands of private-sector jobs that come with it. At a moment when tensions are rising in the Middle East, millions of Americans are struggling to find work and millions more are struggling with the rising cost of gas, Democrat opposition to this legislation shows how deeply out of touch they are with the concerns of middle-class Americans. President Obama’s personal pleas to wavering Senators may have tipped the balance against this legislation. When it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval Office.” (source: Gas Prices Be Damned… Obama & Senate Democrats Block Keystone Pipeline Again)
The stock market was overvalued and there is a lot of buying now because many investors believe it has bottomed out and stocks are a good buy (buy low; sell high). The market generally overreacts to other leading economic indicators. A run in the stock market always precedes a recovery, but a recovery doesn't always follow a run in the stock market. This is because in a real recovery the stock market will continue to go up, but sometimes the market improves in anticipation of a recovery that doesn't occur.
The market is highly speculative and it's not real money, anyway. Those gains are only realized if the stock holder sells and, of course, selling stock puts downward pressure on the market. It's an indicator of a potential economic recovery, but not a highly reliable one like reduced unemployment, increased industrial productivity and increased consumer spending are.
A big reason for that collapse was that banks were under pressure to approve home loans to people who couldn't afford it. The belief was that neighborhoods are improved when people own, instead of renting their homes. That's true but it doesn't justify extending loans to people who don't have the income to make their payments. It was thought the the value of the homes would continue to go up so there was little risk to the banks (because of the equity in the homes.) The banks screwed up and houses were artificially overvalued. That is not Obama's fault, but a lot of liberal programs were to blame. (see Community Reinvestment Act, Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank.)
As one of the long term unemployed, who is 21 months behind on my rent (my roommate has been very understanding!) the last thing I am doing is rooting against the recovery. I understand what helps the economy recover. I was 18 when Reagan took office and I well remember the worse recession of the late 70s. I also remember the minor recession that occurred when Bush, SR went back on his promise to not raise taxes. The Obama administration is NOT doing what it takes to improve the economy. The "food stamps" President and democrats in general need a populace who is dependent on govt support for votes. Their political base is people who want the govt to give them stuff.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Continued ...
I'm afraid I have a very full plate today, so I may not be able to continue with my replies until Wednesday.
Hang in there and I will get to the rest of it.
I don't buy into the whole president, whomever he/she may be, inheriting all the problems supposedly created by the previous administration. These are problems that politicians, including the presidential nominees, help to create.
I still don't see any threat. You are just going to spin around like mad and hope you can translate it into one.
The human element would be the effect of the law on human beings. And you act as if it President Obama specifically wants them to rule against the Constitution, because he knows it isn't constitutional, which is just ridiculous.
You abandon every single morsel of reasoning to invent a threat that was never made.
As for the argument for life terms, we are just flat out going to disagree. You seem to think that not having to answer to the people means that they will vote according to law, and not for personal reasons, or anything else. It's just way off base.