Obama and Boehner Speeches

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-20-2007
Obama and Boehner Speeches
46
Mon, 07-25-2011 - 9:46pm

What are your thoughts about it?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 08-04-2011 - 7:08pm

It's "off-base", "twisted" and "odd" to send out a rallying cry of spend, spend, spend after the nation was attacked.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Mon, 08-01-2011 - 10:48pm
janetlz wrote:

Check out this book review, and keep in mind, it was published before Citizens United v.FEC, probably the most activist decision in the last century:

How do you figure the Citizens United case to be an activist decision?

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Mon, 08-01-2011 - 1:29pm

Check out this book review, and keep in mind, it was published before Citizens United v.FEC, probably the most activist decision in the last century:

"Because it has implemented a new conservative constitutional jurisprudence while maintaining many of the liberal policies of the Warren and Burger Courts, Keck has dubbed the Rehnquist Court the “most activist court in history.” This is so for three specific reasons. First, since 1994, the Court has overturned more federal laws than at any other time in its history (p.203). Second, as illustrated by the case of BOERNE v. FLORES (1997), the Court has “declared its own authority in a confident tone, as its leading justices are committed to a strong conception of judicial supremacy” (p.203). Third, the Court has been willing to intervene in many important areas of law and policy. As Keck explains, “the later Rehnquist Court recognizes no ‘political thickets’ in which it is unwilling to exercise its power. BUSH v. GORE [2000] is the best example here” (208). Keck concludes the book with an attempt to explain the Rehnquist Court’s policymaking activism. He concludes that it is neither due to “Law without Politics” nor “Politics without Law.” Instead it is a result of the development of constitutional jurisprudence in the post-New Deal period and the interaction between law and politics. These factors are exemplified both by the continued liberal activism and the limited conservative activism of Justices O’Connor and Kennedy (pp.271-272).

My evaluation of Keck’s book is generally positive.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 11:32pm
jabberwocka wrote:

Your rhetoric would be more convincing if it was backed by facts.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 10:35am

Your rhetoric would be more convincing if it was backed by facts.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 9:21am

I think you already know that the Tea Party is for job creation and smaller government. Two things that are seriously lacking from Obama. I doubt they agree with that theory that tax hikes don't hurt job creation.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 8:22am

<>

Any party that wants to kill jobs is not supporting the Constitution:

"Republicans in Congress, not wanting to appear to defend the rich, have attempted to block any deal that includes higher taxes on the grounds that tax hikes are "job-killing." But experience shows that in a period of slack demand like the present, tax hikes are no more job-killing than spending cuts, and probably less so. Cutting spending -- say, by firing federal employees or canceling procurement -- removes demand from the economy dollar-for-dollar. A dollar tax hike, on the other hand, especially one aimed at upper incomes, cuts demand by less than a dollar. Those who pay the tax cover part of it from their savings and only part by reducing their spending. If lawmakers insist on using the phrase "job-killing," Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, wrote in a recent blog post, "they should apply it equally to both tax increases and spending cuts."

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113223/why-debt-crisis-is-even-worse-than-you-think-businessweek?mod=bb-budgeting

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 07-31-2011 - 12:06am
jabberwocka wrote:


Bush trashed the country and Obama hasn't been able and/or willing to get it cleaned up as he promised and we hoped. I remember thinking that it truly would take a messiah to work the miracles needed to bring the country back on track and Obama was a mere human. So people, at least those of us paying attention, remember well enough just how miserable Bush was in "leading" the country down the primrose path to ruin.

This is laughable. Yeah, right. Bush "trashed the country", then poor old Barrack Hussein came in and just hasn't been able to clean up the mess! Huge deficit spending, as never before seen, and gigantic government expansion just hasn't put the private sector back on track. What a surprise! An idiot community organizer in charge, and we have an iron fisted government pushing us toward bankruptcy.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 9:04pm

I completely agree with you!

*****

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 6:31pm

Hmmmm...... I didn't analyze Klein's claims but am well aware that numbers can be manipulated and/or categorized in ways which can be skewed to tell whatever story is wanted.

Speaking of which, the claim that "Democrats controlled Congress between 2006 and 2010" is true in as much as they had a simple majority in both houses. BUT they didn't have the votes in the Senate to overturn a presidential veto, nor did they have the supermajority numbers which would shut off filibuster, or even the threat of filibuster--which BTW, is still the case: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-debt-impasse-20110730,0,166771.story Hence, the narrative of Democratic legislative control is false. But there are those who don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good tale.

Bush trashed the country and Obama hasn't been able and/or willing to get it cleaned up as he promised and we hoped. I remember thinking that it truly would take a messiah to work the miracles needed to bring the country back on track and Obama was a mere human. So people, at least those of us paying attention, remember well enough just how miserable Bush was in "leading" the country down the primrose path to ruin.

Since the Tea Party's reason for existence was mostly about their own "hatred and vitriol", I find it more than a little ironic that you claim they're hated. Do you not remember all the town hall meetings where TP'ers yelled, heckled, threatened, and disrupted? The gun-toting gatherings? Because I sure do and most emphatically disagree that those who point out the TP'ers rage were "the real malicious ones".

Edited to add that the claims of death panels and death books ( as part of the Affordable Health Care ACT) which were promulgated in both the conservative blogosphere and on NewsCorp outlets, and which too many citizens believed, were nothing more than hyperbole, breathless sensationalizing and worst of all, fear mongering lies.

Jabberwocka

Pages