What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[koalabear]

The vast majority of Obama's nominations passed unanimously once they got a vote. No Obama court of appeals nominees were confirmed with less than a 20-vote margin. And only 1 out of 74 nominees were confirmed in a vote that was even remotely close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama




None are too radical to get through the senate. When it comes time to vote on them they'll all pass.

Dem Senate does Oblamer bidding, strange,MORON.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

By the time the vote comes around, he and they will be gone.

What happens if he and they aren't going anywhere?

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

By the time the vote comes around, he and they will be gone.

That's the strategy Republicans are employing. Don't let confirmations happen, even if they're necessary for government to function properly. Even if they're just mid-level positions in Obama's own administration, nope he can't have them.

Any President who uses the recess appointment as a regular device to avoid the Senate confirmation of his officers ought to be impeached for violating the spirit of the Constitution.

So much for your "violating the spirit of the Constitution" bit, eh? Pretty sure it wasn't the founding fathers' intent for the minority to hold up hundreds of nominations because it favors one political party. Pretty sure their intent was not to provide a mechanism where one party could prevent votes until they get back into power.

Hypocrite.

 

[eyer]

In April 2010, the IMF published a report calling for the creation of a central world bank that would issue a "new" world reserve currency: the "Bancor"...

...which is needed, it was reported, to replace the "old" world reserve currency: the US dollar.

America can only continue printing limitless amounts of money as long as the dollar is the reserve currency of the world and that is the only reason we have any fiscal feet left to stand on now.

No other country in the world has that luxury today (of unlimited monetary issuance), because no other country's currency is accepted and depended upon like the dollar is...

...well, at least as it was.

Each day that dawns finds the dollars' strength weaker abroad and at home than the day before (it's lost something like 12% just in the last year alone); more and more institutions are refusing dollars as payment, more are making it more difficult to exchange dollars for other currencies, and more entities - especially here in the USSA - are accepting other currencies other than the dollar for payment.

Communist China, Russia, Japan and other nations are calling for the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency; some nations - Islamic Iran and Communist Cuba, eg - don't accept dollar transactions at all. Many of the Gulf states are planning their own collective currency...

...and when America finds itself in the position of dollars having to be converted to another currency before a purchase of a gallon of gas can be rung up, well, then we'll finally see the disastrous effect in prices so high that chaos in the streets materialize right here at home.

Every single dollar more that's printed now does nothing but weaken more the value of the dollars already in circulation...

...and the private Fed is considering hundreds of billions of more fiat release in the very near future.

Before WWII, British sterling was held as the world's reserve currency; read and learn of their economic downfall since then ("the sick sister of Europe"). Since WWII, the dollar has taken the sterling's place. And since then, the USA has gone from history's greatest creditor nation to its worst debtor nation; from the world's largest producing nation to the world's largest consuming nation. And the only reason it's been possible we've survived such lunacy is because we print the money the world uses...

...until now.
]
]
]

 

[mercury14]

By the time the vote comes around, he and they will be gone.

"Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee? Or, will we create an unprecedented 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of President Bush's judges?"

- Bill Frist


"The Senate has a solemn responsibility to exercise its constitutional advice and consent function and hold up or down votes on judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination. I ask that the Senate take action, including adoption of a permanent rule, to ensure timely up or down votes on judicial nominations both now and in the future, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate."

- George W Bush


"[Filibustering] is wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up."

- Mitch McConnell


"Republicans say their success at the polls gives them and the president a right to these nominees: "It is about majorities. Elections have consequences." "

- Rick Santorum


I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor.

- Orrin Hatch


All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.

- John Kyl


And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat.

- John Cornyn


Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate.

- Mitch McConnell


This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote.

- Jeff Sessions


All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.

- Sam Brownback


However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics.

- John Thune


My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote.

- Jim DeMint




Republican hypocrisy is a total bitch. Every single Republican leader in the senate JUST SAID that nominees deserve swift up or down votes REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY. Then they do the exact opposite. How can any of you defend this horrid hypocrisy?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee? Or, will we create an unprecedented 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of President Bush's judges?"

- Bill Frist


"The Senate has a solemn responsibility to exercise its constitutional advice and consent function and hold up or down votes on judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination. I ask that the Senate take action, including adoption of a permanent rule, to ensure timely up or down votes on judicial nominations both now and in the future, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate."

- George W Bush


"[Filibustering] is wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up."

- Mitch McConnell


"Republicans say their success at the polls gives them and the president a right to these nominees: "It is about majorities. Elections have consequences." "

- Rick Santorum


I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor.

- Orrin Hatch


All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.

- John Kyl


And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat.

- John Cornyn


Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate.

- Mitch McConnell


This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote.

- Jeff Sessions


All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.

- Sam Brownback


However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics.

- John Thune


My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote.

- Jim DeMint




Republican hypocrisy is a total bitch. Every single Republican leader in the senate JUST SAID that nominees deserve swift up or down votes REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY. Then they do the exact opposite. How can any of you defend this horrid hypocrisy?

http://plus4chan.org/b/co/src/131232205814.gif

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Nor was it their intent for a President to appoint people who would undermine the rights of the American people and the Constitution.

Oh gawd damn Vette. These 15 recess appointees were installed in March of 2010. List the ways they've undermined the rights of the American people and the Constitution.


If you can't do this then for the love of Ganesh, Shiva, and Vishnu, shut the hell up.

 

[mercury14]

Any President who uses the recess appointment as a regular device to avoid the Senate confirmation of his officers ought to be impeached for violating the spirit of the Constitution.

First you proclaim your belief in "liberal" demand-side economics, now you proclaim you're part of the "impeach Bush now!" crowd. You're having a really bad week.


Number of recess appointments by George W Bush: 171.

Number of recess appointments by Obama: 15

Number of recess appointments by Obama if you extrapolate to 8 years: 38

Number of years Obama would have to be president to have as many recess appointments as Bush: 34

Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I can't name any ways that they've undermined the Constitution. Not one single way.

Fixed your post for you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g79/jbravo688/mentalflossx.gif


You are becoming robotic in nature.

Guess what, I annihilated you on every single point you've made. You've been exposed as a fraudster full of selective moral and faux-Constitutional outrage. You have nothing.

 

[mercury14]

That's all you got is the falsification of posts, like you do other reality to support your insane position.

Nope, you can't name even one way these nominees have undermined the constitution. You have zero evidence, zero support for your argument, and you know you're not getting any.

Because there is none.

But hey, you still have old man conservative anger. Even if you can't justify it.

 

[cebalrai]

First you proclaim your belief in "liberal" demand-side economics, now you proclaim you're part of the "impeach Bush now!" crowd. You're having a really bad week.


Number of recess appointments by George W Bush: 171.

Number of recess appointments by Obama: 15

Number of recess appointments by Obama if you extrapolate to 8 years: 38

Number of years Obama would have to be president to have as many recess appointments as Bush: 34

Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

Unless you can counter this with some facts Vetteman.......... Not sure how you can keep arguing.

But there is one more thing worth noting. At this point in Bush's presidency he only had 15 recess appointments too. Then later on when Democrats picked up power and eventually controlled the Senate his recess appointments exploded. The difference is that Bush had to deal with the other party controlling the senate. Obama has his own party controlling the Senate though. It's completely unprecedented and yes, against the spirit of the Constitution to have this kind of minority rule.

Vetteman, unless you have some facts up your sleeve it's time to throw up the white flag again.

 

[RightField]

I think these guys are just LT alts.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I think these guys are just LT alts.

Man, you guys are really sad when you get bitch slapped on points you can't refute.

 

[RightField]

Man, you guys are really sad when you get bitch slapped on points you can't refute.

I feel like a teacher saying "2+2=4" and merc is saying "That can't be true because the "2" is red and 20,000 economists agree that "2's" should be green". There doesn't seem to be any corralation between his point and the points people are trying to make. As an example, he thinks temporary programs like "Cash for Clunkers" and tax credits clearly are equivalent to marginal tax reductions and wonders why we support one and not the other and call us hypocrite for it. There's no debate point for clarifying willful obfuscation through pretend misunderstanding.

This article provides some additional clarification:

Obama: The Obsolete 'Post Office President'
By Robert Tracinski

The preposterous irrelevance of President Obama's jobs speech is summed up by the fact that he repeatedly urged Congress to "pass this jobs bill right away"--but there is no bill. By the admission of his own aides, Obama's jobs bill is still being drafted. It won't be submitted until next week, and his plan for how to pay for it won't be submitted until the week after that. (Even then, the plan is mostly to pass the buck to the "super-committee" created by this summer's debt ceiling compromise.) All of this gave his exhortations an air of "buy now!" hucksterism. For a moment there, I wasn't sure whether he was selling us a jobs bill or the Slap Chop. Except that Vince Shlomi is a much better salesman.

Yet there is a much deeper and more profound irrelevance to the president's proposals. They are all based on the premise that the government can come up with a few targeted initiatives and select some worthy projects to fund through a federal "infrastructure bank," and this will somehow press the magic levers that produce economic growth. None of this has any relation to the actual dynamism of a free economy, because Obama does not grasp the source of that dynamism.

We're about to get a really big reminder of how the constant change and progress or a free society overturns the static calculations of government bureaucrats. The US Postal Service is bankrupt. At its current rate, it will have to shut down this winter because it will run out of cash to pay its bills. This has been coming for a long time, and not just because of a bloated union payroll. First-class mail is the core business of the Postal Service, and the Internet has simply made it unnecessary. From everyday communications to bills and bank statements, practically everything can now be done by e-mail or online. Even our junk mail is digital now. So while President Obama is talking about a jobs bill, an obsolete government-run entity is about to lay off hundreds of thousands of superfluous workers.

This is a monument to the folly that politicians and bureaucrats are able to make judgments about the most productive investments in infrastructure and economic growth. They can't make these predictions because no one can. Recently Newsweek posted on its website on old article from its 1995 print issue informing us that this whole "Internet" thing is an overblown fad, because "no online database will replace your daily newspaper" and "the myopic glow of a clunky computer" can't replace "the friendly pages of a book." She'll never fly, Orville.

But even those who got the predictions right didn't get them right. Recently, a series of 1993 commercials for AT&T have been making the rounds on the Internet. The ads predict virtually every part of our current online existence, from e-books to EZ-Pass. But the details are a bit off: the ads predict tablet PCs, but assume they will be used to send faxes. Try not to giggle. And these old ads were sent out by Newsweek on a special CD-ROM edition, back when they were predicting that magazines would someday be delivered by CD-ROM. The most ironic twist is the ad's tagline: "and the company that will bring it to you: AT&T." In fact, these things were brought to us by everybody but AT&T.

AT&T's actual role today is as one of a small number of major data-carriers, who transmit the information for all of those other functions. They have recently tried to improve their position against stronger competitors (such as Verizon, which stole a lot of iPhone traffic away from them) through a merger with T-Mobile. But just as with the Post Office, the federal government is not up to speed with the era of tablet PCs and e-mail and video teleconferencing. They're trying to block the merger to keep AT&T from becoming a big, scary monopoly, as if we were still back in the age of Ma Bell.

These are the same people who, in 2005, blocked a merger between Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, because no one should be allowed to dominate the highly profitable business of retail VHS rental stores. This was only six years ago, when Netflix was already starting to destroy Blockbuster's business, leading it to declare bankruptcy this year, long after the company ceased to be a presence in most of our lives. And now Netflix itself is in trouble, as more people are beginning to download movies over their Internet connections, where competition is plentiful and Netflix has no particular market advantage. Such is the frantic cycle of innovation in the private economy.

Some day, a few decades from now, someone will make a movie set in 2009, and one of the visual giveaways will be those little red envelopes arriving--by way of the Postal Service!--with silver discs inside of them. We will all chuckle with the recognition of a time gone by, while 15-year-old kids will snort and roll their eyes and wonder how their elders ever survived in such primitive conditions. Meanwhile, the federal government will still be trying to figure out how to subsidize the Postal Service and keep Netflix from becoming a monopoly.

The pace of commercial and technological innovation is not news. It is a daily reality that we take for granted. But the story underneath it is what politicians like Barack Obama refuse to acknowledge, and it is what makes all of their fake jobs programs and "infrastructure banks" so futile and destructive.

What they refuse to grasp is the root of America's dynamism: the endless creativity of the individual human mind when it is left free to innovate. The government does not need to intervene to get people to come up with new ideas or to encourage entrepreneurs to grow and become successful. It only needs to get out of the way.

When, instead, geniuses like Barack Obama decided they are going to use the power of government to impose their ideas and grow only the kinds of enterprises they favor, the result is not brisk innovation but the dead hand of static ideas. That is the lesson of the government's failed experiment with solar panel maker Solyndra, which President Obama touted last year as the wave of the future, and whose technology was rendered obsolete before they even finished building their gleaming new factory backed by $600 million in federal loan guarantees. And it's not just Solyndra. The whole solar and "alternative" energy sector is crashing. These companies were not profitable and have not become profitable. The moment government subsidies and loan guarantees evaporate, so do they.

So much for Obama's career as a high-tech venture capitalist. Too bad the money he's risking is ours.

The whole "alternative energy" boondoggle is based directly on the failure to anticipate or acknowledge individual thinking and new ideas. The push for alternatives to oil and natural gas was based partly on the premise that we were facing an impending shortage of these resources. But breathless predictions of "peak oil" have been shattered by new techniques of exploration and extraction, such as "fracking," that have opened up vast new reserves.

The other basis for "alternative energy" was the supposed need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in order to avoid runaway global warming. But here, too, the federal government has stuck to a theory Al Gore glommed onto in 1988, while ignoring powerful new ideas that have superseded it. In this case, I am speaking of the truly path-breaking theories of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark. Over the past 15 years, Svensmark has quietly made the whole global warming theory obsolete by developing a new theory about how cosmic rays--fast-moving charged particles from deep space--react with the atmosphere to create the "nucleation sites" that lead to the formation of clouds, cooling the Earth. Svensmark has begun to demonstrate in detail how this effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mileage of your SUV, explains variations in cloud cover and variations in global temperatures.

Svensmark's theory just passed a new milestone, with some of its key claims being demonstrated in a "cloud chamber" experiment at Europe's CERN particle accelerator. This was not reported in the left-leaning media, but is extensively covered by Daily Telegraph blogger James Delingpole and summarized in the Wall Street Journal.

Yet here is Barack Obama, our Post Office President, bitterly clinging to the theories of the past and doubling down his investments in failure, while new ideas and innovations pass him by. Such is the fate of anyone who presumes to place the static judgments of an entrenched bureaucracy over the rational thinking and creative efforts of free minds.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

You annihilated nobody, except in your mind. You see you are too ignorant to see my point and I'm too lazy to do what your parents should have already done.

I exposed one of your points as a nothing more than a hypocritical double-standard. The second point you made, well... Turns out you never had any evidence to support it. Your baseless argument is baseless, otherwise you would have based it by now.

Please make moar points. These ones are broken.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I think these guys are just LT alts.

Your response is:

1) Don't think.

2) Instead, spam other people's thoughts in the form of steaming piles of extremist opinion pieces that nobody will ever read.

3) Distract be accusing your opponent of being an alt.


It's simply not possible to debate in a weaker, more worthless way than this.