I think the labor participation rate is what people were concerned with rather than the unemployment rate. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 Precedent. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...-court-nomination-situation-isnt-that-unique/ And I agree that the SCOTUS appointment had a huge impact on the election. It certainly affected my vote. But as HRC was expected to win anyway, the appointment of a new activist justice was inevitable. So why concern yourself over the machinations of the craven and horrible Senate? Or is a Justice delayed equal justice denied? Easy, friend. Let’s save this for October.
They were much more of a crapshoot back then. The parties weren't anywhere near as polarized, and the Court hadn't fully embraced its role in the culture wars. Nowadays, it's very predictable how a nominee will vote on hot button social issues based on party affiliation. A Republican hasn't appointed a social moderate in 28 years, and a Democrat hasn't appointed one in 56 years. Furthermore, the Court has now fully embraced its role as the ultimate arbiter of social issues. That's a disgrace and the biggest threat to democratic principles in the country, but that's the reality.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm no legal scholar, but, hasn't Roberts been relatively moderate? I think the court needs balance.
"Might" is a perfect barometer for taking someone's rights away. And what better way to do that than to give that right to a government bureau with absolutely no accountability or responsibility. Do you also believe someone shouldn't allowed to have a gun if they can't get a driver's license? If they've ever been diagnosed with any level of depression? ADD? How about epilepsy? An epileptic might have a seizure while handling his gun and injure someone or himself. Can't have that, can we? The bill had nothing to do with mental illness - I notice you moved the bar to "mental incapacities," but it's equally offensive. And yes, you're still being dishonest about it.
Roberts has been reliably conservative. But he has avoided being a partisan hack like most of the other Justices, i.e. he maintains an honest conservative position even if it undercuts a broader "conservative" agenda. If we had more like him and Breyer, and fewer like Ginsburg and Thomas, the Court (and the country) would be better off.
Don't worry. If there was an ambiguity as to whether or not you were a scholar (of any kind), the Switzer photo pretty much resolved that ambiguity. (You do realize that I'm going to hassle you about that picture for the rest of your life, right? If this forum never goes away and I'm still on it when I'm 90, I'll still give you **** about it. It'll never get old.) When we're not talking about social issues, the ideological tendencies get far less predictable. For example, Breyer is more favorable to business and less favorable to criminal defendants than Ginsburg and Sotomayor are. Ditto for Kagan but to a lesser extent. Roberts isn't particularly friendly to capital punishment like the rest of the conservative bloc is (though he probably wouldn't abolish it altogether), and of course, he voted to uphold Obamacare. However, on issues that are truly cultural and social in nature (gay issues, abortion, affirmative action, etc.), Roberts almost always comes down on the side of the conservative wing. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm not looking for balance in a judge. I'm looking for a judge who follows the written law and keeps his policy agenda out of it. In other words, a Democratic judge's rulings shouldn't look that different from a Republican judge's rulings.
I think a group of nine would benefit from a few on each end of the relative spectrum and a solid group in the core. The justices seem to have migrated slowly to where we are - polarized to some extent.
An economy propped up by quantitative easing and hamburger jobs is the same as one with higher paying manufacturing jobs?
The economy is going to do well. It will continue the upward trend and will be helped along by $1.4 trillion more deficit, the hill many were willing to die on 1/20/09-1/19/16. Just admit the hypocrisy. That's all I'm asking.
For the millionth time that tax bill may not add to the deficit. In January we had record tax revenue. WE HAD A SURPLUS! CNN didn't tell you that did they?
Interesting. You might want to re-visit where you gather your data. But, according to fiscal.treasury.gov you're almost right. Dude... a few clarifications. January of '16 the surplus was $55 billion. January of '17 it was $51 billion. January of '18 was $49 billion. Given that this is the "millionth" time that you've provided me with this fake news....that's pretty ironic. You should have said "billionth" to be more on brand.
The Federal government always runs a surplus when waves of tax payments come in -- January (safe-harbor payments), September (calendar-year corporate returns), and especially April (1040s). In all other months, it runs a deficit.
That's not the point. The point is that the tax cut did not cause a drop in revenue. At least not yet. That's the point I'm trying to make to Bubba.
Bubba, I agree with Mr. Deez. May the day never come that I run under the flag of 'the Swizzler'. Choosing to err on the 'wish it was so' side, I hope that we are just beginning to enjoy the benefits of the 'shovel ready jobs' agenda of the Obamanator. With this wind at our back, where is the limit? Everybody needs to own up. Who wants a job? We all want a PAYCHECK. Source is the only issue.
Lots of stuff "might" save lives that liberals never talk about. Why don't busses have seat belts? Why don't we raise the driving age to 21? I guarantee THAT would save lives. Also, adding more armed guards and closing campi while allowing trained faculty to carry weapons MIGHT save lives, but all of a sudden "might" is discounted. Banning "assault rifles" (when you guys decide what those are) won't stop killings, and everyone admits that. But liberals still want to do it because it feels good. Adding armed guards and metal detectors almost surely WOULD stop SOME killings and discourage other, but most liberals don't want to do it because it feels wrong. All of a sudden the "if it saves one life" argument is nowhere to be found.
The point that you're COMPLETELY ignoring is that you stated a fact for the "millionth" time that was actually not a fact. Read the link. Click around and see for yourself. Maybe we are in a post-fact world.
Maybe we should go back to the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire. That would be a good start. From the 10 minutes I watched of the CNN town hall thing that included 220 weapons.
A huge fraction of tax payments in January 2018 were for 2017 taxes, which will continue to be the case until April 2018 for personal returns and later for corporate returns. The impact of the new tax laws on Federal receipts will be felt when 2018 taxes come due. A proxy for that will be 2018 monthly withholding payments and quarterly estimated payments, but the real answer will come in 2019 when 2018 returns are filed.
You were an economics major. Tell us WHY there was a surplus for January. Then admit why January was an aberration thus the incessant citing of that statistic doesn't remotely disprove OUBubba's tax deficit point.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 So it's been a "record" every year except 1983. So, Obama had 8 "record" years? Is that better?
