Judge Alito

[David]

Is an up and coming conservative beacon. Last night he mouthed "not true" when Obama called out the Supreme Court for standing up for free speech.

BTW, can you ever recall and POTUS sliming the SCOTUS in a SOTU address?

Video: Did Justice Alito diss Obama?

SOURCE

[David]

It is really interesting to see the blogs spending more time discussing Alito's "not true" than Obama's address. Well, not quite more time but that is what people are discussing. I am sorry what Obama did was out of line. I am certain someone will do the research on how many Presidents have ever called out the SCOTUS in a SOTU address. Staring at them while voicing his displeasure. Really rings true when the guy discusses cooperation and non partisanship while spending half his speech in campaign mode. Complaining about Bush's "lost decade." Calling out Republicans for just saying "NO."

[jtdc]

That's why so many refer to him a "Zero". He's what they call an "empty suit".

[kestrel]

If you really believe that "standing up for free speech" involves selling our political system to the highest bidder then our country is truly ****ed.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by David

Is an up and coming conservative beacon. Last night he mouthed "not true" when Obama called out the Supreme Court for standing up for free speech.

BTW, can you ever recall and POTUS sliming the SCOTUS in a SOTU address?

Video: Did Justice Alito diss Obama?

SOURCE

It was an overly aggressive move by BHO against the SCOTUS who were right in front of him, no less. He had the megaphone, they were required to be silent. Alito's horrible sin is of lower severity. But you know what? I don't like Alito, and I damn sure don't like Thomas and Scalia. Roberts, I'm on the fence.

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by kestrel

If you really believe that "standing up for free speech" involves selling our political system to the highest bidder then our country is truly ****ed.

Highest bidder? Are you suggesting that payment was made to Supreme Court Justices in the way the Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu were paid for their votes?

If you really believe that corporations are the highest bidders, you are truly deluded. Our political system is being bought and paid for with our own tax dollars. What the hell do you think the "stimulus" is for?

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by dcannady

Highest bidder? Are you suggesting that payment was made to Supreme Court Justices in the way the Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu were paid for their votes?

If you really believe that corporations are the highest bidders, you are truly deluded. Our political system is being bought and paid for with our own tax dollars. What the hell do you think the "stimulus" is for?

I have to wonder how you'd react if Obama was doing no stimulus spending while the economy tanked and layoffs were widespread. Lesee, perhaps (not a real quote - speculation): "Obama's wooden, flaccid response to the current severe situation once more shows how ignorant the left is on matters of basic economy maintenance. And they gave Bush heat for dropping he ball with Hurricane Katrina."

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by irish infection

I have to wonder how you'd react if Obama was doing no stimulus spending while the economy tanked and layoffs were widespread.

No in between with you, huh? How about if Obama gave a tax cut as the stimulus? There is such a thing as doing the right thing! You offer two "wrongs" as the only choices.

[schaabdl]

Agree with jtdc - only have to look back a few years when record (2002-2006) employment was happening, UE rate around 4% and income to the treasury was at record highs. Look only two years back and spending takes off, congress says the tax cuts will expire, then one year ago the new president continues with even more spending. Give tax cuts and REAL spending cuts - and get out the way for the new economy.

[schaabdl]

And by the way what BHO was not true - read the judgment - it specifically states that foreign involvement remains in place - illegal. In other words quoting the most excellent congressman from a few months ago "you lie."

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by Irish flu

It was an overly aggressive move by BHO against the SCOTUS who were right in front of him, no less. He had the megaphone, they were required to be silent. Alito's horrible sin is of lower severity. But you know what? I don't like Alito, and I damn sure don't like Thomas and Scalia. Roberts, I'm on the fence.

I'm sure these guys you don't like are torn up about it.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by jtdc

No in between with you, huh? How about if Obama gave a tax cut as the stimulus? There is such a thing as doing the right thing! You offer two "wrongs" as the only choices.

Oh yeah, let's give out endless tax cuts, especially to the rich, while our deficits pile higher and higher.

Any future tax cuts must be matched by program/spending cuts. The 'cut taxes, borrow, and spend' of the Bush years is/was unsupportable.

And besides, the need for infrastructure maintenance has been growing for years. People are going to mount their own projects on that score with the extra income they don't spend on taxes?

[David]

Originally Posted by Irish flu

Oh yeah, let's give out endless tax cuts, especially to the rich, while our deficits pile higher and higher.

Any future tax cuts must be matched by program/spending cuts. The 'cut taxes, borrow, and spend' of the Bush years is/was unsupportable.

And besides, the need for infrastructure maintenance has been growing for years. People are going to mount their own projects on that score with the extra income they don't spend on taxes?

Hey IF. You are a fair foil in this thread and throughout the board. I have grown to appreciate your take on things. Don't often agree but you keep us on our game. Yes. Lots of caffeine will do this to me.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by irish fool

Oh yeah, let's give out endless tax cuts, especially to the rich, while our deficits pile higher and higher.

Exactly what I said of you: "No in between with you, huh?"

[schaabdl]

Tax cuts do not cost the government money - please check out history and revenue INCREASES to the treasury. CUT SPENDING - you ONLY have a deficit if you spend more than your income. Kennedy, Reagan, GWB - all brought more money into the treasury with the cuts (GWB record income).

[fitzlaw]

Criticizing the Supreme Court in the SOTU address was very bad form. Getting the holding wrong while doing so was inexcusable. I guess Obama's legal career as a "community organizer" did not provide the training for him to properly understand Supreme Court decisions.

[David]

Originally Posted by fitzlaw

Criticizing the Supreme Court in the SOTU address was very bad form. Getting the holding wrong while doing so was inexcusable. I guess Obama's legal career as a "community organizer" did not provide the training for him to properly understand Supreme Court decisions.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by David

Hey IF. You are a fair foil in this thread and throughout the board. I have grown to appreciate your take on things. Don't often agree but you keep us on our game. Yes. Lots of caffeine will do this to me.

I relayed this post to my handlers and they agree with me that you are well on your way to reformation. Now, please excuse me, I need to go to the liberal blogs to get my marching orders.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Exactly what I said of you: "No in between with you, huh?"

OK, at what point have taxes been cut enough, a point at beyond which, deficits will bury us? Until we actually find the political will to significantly reduce expenditures, the political will to cut taxes is little better than dangerous grandstanding.

And the notion that tax cuts always result in more revenue is not sound. In a certain range, it will almost certainly be true. Say, if rates were 60% across the board, and were suddenly reduced to 40, that's a 50% increase in funds available to the average person.

But for a tax cut of say, 25 down to 20% to result in more tax revenues, that extra 5% of monies would need to earn several hundred per cent in income.

At $100K, the lower rate would yield $5K more in spending money. In order for the 20% rate to pull in as much revenue as the 25% rate, the newly available money must increase income to $125K. Expecting $5K extra to return $25K is unhh . . . optimistic.

If I was back at school trying to finally finish out my math degree (might happen, if I'm going to teach math after my body gets all stove out on construction) I might try to do a comp. program to calculate all of that. I suspect there would a curve in the graph of taxes cut to new taxes returned. The closer you get to zero in tax rates, the less plausible the concept is, I think, that is, don't have time to prove it now.

At any rate, it's very hard to prove anything in economics.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by David

Hey IF. You are a fair foil in this thread and throughout the board.

Not to be whiney or anything, but doesn't 'troll' mean someone whose intent is merely to annoy others? I did some seriously smart-assed stuff in my youth and I wince when I think about it. Not much return on investment in that.

I've met many conservatives who would make better neighbors that some liberals and vice versa. I'm wondering if I get way too wrapped up in the left/right conflict. I know that I've met people, left and right, who just bore the hell out of you with their always shifting the conversation to some hobby horse rap about this or that. I don't want to come across like that.