President Barack Obama - Term Two Thread

[Memorex]

A number I'd be curious to know is of all the new jobs, how many are paying more/less than before.

[Memorex]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

[conversationpc]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

I think it could go either way...At this point, however, I'm guessing they will decide in favor of the Obama Administration.

[slucero]

A number I'd be curious to know is of all the new jobs, how many are paying more/less than before.

That's easy... payroll tax revenue is down... so the jobs are paying less..

[Memorex]

A number I'd be curious to know is of all the new jobs, how many are paying more/less than before.

That's easy... payroll tax revenue is down... so the jobs are paying less..

Couldn't that just stem from the fact that there are still fewer employed people?

[slucero]

A number I'd be curious to know is of all the new jobs, how many are paying more/less than before.

That's easy... payroll tax revenue is down... so the jobs are paying less..

Couldn't that just stem from the fact that there are still fewer employed people?

It's an "employers market".. they have no incentive to hire at higher wages.. Wage deflation is always a by-product of recessions/depressions.

Further - For the US unemployment to be declining, Federal tax withholdings have to be rising: there is no way around it. Instead, as the chart below shows, as of Dec-2011, trailing quarterly collections turned negative.




If we simply use the calculation used during the Clinton administration.. unemployment would be around 11%. Translation.. the BLS is lying about the real unemployment rate...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

I think it could go either way...At this point, however, I'm guessing they will decide in favor of the Obama Administration.

I agree. Its actually up to Scalia and Kennedy. I think one is going to side with Obama. and that will be 5-4.

but anyone who tells you for certain how these guys will vote is lying. There is alot of uncharted territory here.

[Seven Wishes2]

What you're failing to acknowledge in those projections is the decrease in revenue tied to the maintenance of the low corporate tax rate as well as the innumerable loopholes the GOP has fought so hard to maintain the past ten years.

I believe Kennedy is going to align with the "conservatives" (who have been pawning the individual mandate for close to 20 years) and strike down that portion of the new health care law.

[slucero]

What you're failing to acknowledge in those projections is the decrease in revenue tied to the maintenance of the low corporate tax rate as well as the innumerable loopholes the GOP has fought so hard to maintain the past ten years.

In my post, we're talking about the measure of unemployment and wages rising or falling for new jobs... and its "accuracy"... so the "Withheld Taxes (incl FICA)" line is the relevant one.. if withholding revenues are rising ... job creation and wage rise is obvious.

Look at the chart... the gold line rises and falls with the blue line... except at the end... indicating existing corporate taxes are rising.. but withholdings are not.. so it follows that existing job creation is of a lower wage variety...

[conversationpc]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

I think it could go either way...At this point, however, I'm guessing they will decide in favor of the Obama Administration.

I agree. Its actually up to Scalia and Kennedy. I think one is going to side with Obama. and that will be 5-4.

but anyone who tells you for certain how these guys will vote is lying. There is alot of uncharted territory here.

A lot changed since I posted that and it looks like it may now go the other way. I actually posted on Facebook after the Obama administration's fiasco in court yesterday that it almost looked like they were purposely throwing the case so they could use it as a wedge issue and then tie it to something like the 2000 election, which went to the Supreme Court. Now look at this article from The Blaze...

Are the Democrats expecting to lose the battle over healthcare? Judging from the comments made by several prominent Dems, the party is prepping for what to do after the high court shoots down the individual mandate.

Two days ago, former DNC Chair Howard Dean told CBS Early Morning that he expected the individual mandate to be overturned.

Yesterday, CNN’s Legal Analyst Jeffry Toobin called the proceedings “a train wreck” and predicted that the individual mandate will “likely be struck down.” If true, how will the Democrats then spin the defeat to their benefit? Enter James Carville.

Last night on CNN, the Democratic consultant made a curious statement about what happens if the Supreme Court rules against the administration. He appears to already be ratcheting up the anti-Republican and anti-Supreme Court rhetoric in preparation, even tying a possible Obamacare defeat to the Bush-Gore election of 2000.

Consider Mr. Carville’s words regarding a potential defeat in the Supreme Court (after saying a defeat would be the “best thing” for Democrats because of rising health care costs):

“They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

In other words: the Supreme Court gave the country Bush, and now it’s going to take away your health care.

“This is not spin,” he reassured.

Really?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-jam ... verturned/

[Fact Finder]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 8481.story


Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

Reporting from Washington—


The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.

[Fact Finder]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

I think it could go either way...At this point, however, I'm guessing they will decide in favor of the Obama Administration.

I agree. Its actually up to Scalia and Kennedy. I think one is going to side with Obama. and that will be 5-4.

but anyone who tells you for certain how these guys will vote is lying. There is alot of uncharted territory here.

A lot changed since I posted that and it looks like it may now go the other way. I actually posted on Facebook after the Obama administration's fiasco in court yesterday that it almost looked like they were purposely throwing the case so they could use it as a wedge issue and then tie it to something like the 2000 election, which went to the Supreme Court. Now look at this article from The Blaze...

Are the Democrats expecting to lose the battle over healthcare? Judging from the comments made by several prominent Dems, the party is prepping for what to do after the high court shoots down the individual mandate.

Two days ago, former DNC Chair Howard Dean told CBS Early Morning that he expected the individual mandate to be overturned.

Yesterday, CNN’s Legal Analyst Jeffry Toobin called the proceedings “a train wreck” and predicted that the individual mandate will “likely be struck down.” If true, how will the Democrats then spin the defeat to their benefit? Enter James Carville.

Last night on CNN, the Democratic consultant made a curious statement about what happens if the Supreme Court rules against the administration. He appears to already be ratcheting up the anti-Republican and anti-Supreme Court rhetoric in preparation, even tying a possible Obamacare defeat to the Bush-Gore election of 2000.

Consider Mr. Carville’s words regarding a potential defeat in the Supreme Court (after saying a defeat would be the “best thing” for Democrats because of rising health care costs):

“They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

In other words: the Supreme Court gave the country Bush, and now it’s going to take away your health care.

“This is not spin,” he reassured.

Really?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-jam ... verturned/

Obama and Carville et al can have Health Care as an issure all they want, it's unemployment and energy prices that will sink them in Nov.

[Seven Wishes2]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

[conversationpc]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

New drilling permits have gone down since Obama took office. Obama has pretty much just continued the policies of the Bush Administration, so to say this is Bush's fault is not taking into account the whole picture. Obama is every bit as responsible as Bush, if not more so since he criticized Bush for some of the same things he's now doing.

[SF-Dano]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

New drilling permits have gone down since Obama took office. Obama has pretty much just continued the policies of the Bush Administration, so to say this is Bush's fault is not taking into account the whole picture. Obama is every bit as responsible as Bush, if not more so since he criticized Bush for some of the same things he's now doing.

I don't know what to believe anymore, but just to add fuel to the debate.....
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/fac ... ate/nLZmf/

Fact Check: Oil production under Obama up only on private land
Production is at a 9-year low on federal land

During his 11-minute speech in Cushing, Okla., this morning, President Barack Obama said, "Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at anytime in the last 8 years."

Mr. Obama has made that claim a benchmark of his 'all-of-the-above' energy policy and has repeated it several times, including when he announced he was rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

According to a KRMG Fact Check, that claim is only partially true.

A recently released (and revised) report from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) (and analyzed by the Heritage Foundation) indicates that whether 'American is producing more oil' depends on which land is being drilled.

The EIA report revealed a 12-percent decline in production for coal, oil, and natural gas on federal and Indian lands from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2011, its lowest point in nine years.

Yet during that same time frame, production on state and private lands has increased, boosting overall production numbers for the United States.

While oil and gas production is up in the United States on private and state land, it is down on federal land, which falls under President Obama's direction.

Nick Loris from the Heritage Foundation outlines four steps Obama has taken to limit U.S. oil production:

•Withdrew areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and natural gas.
•Cancelled lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and delayed exploration off the coast of Alaska and kept other resource-rich areas off-limits.
•Finalized rules, first announced by Secretary Salazar on January 6, 2010, to establish more government hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands.
•Withdrew 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change.

[slucero]

...funny how facts always get in the way of the truth....

[conversationpc]

...funny how facts always get in the way of the truth....

I crack up every time I see your avatar. Saw someone post it on Facebook recently also. Love it!

[Fact Finder]

...funny how facts always get in the way of the truth....

Seven will be along shortly to refute those with other half-truths and lies, he probably will deny that Obama all but begged the Senate this morning to vote an end to the tax breaks to big oil companies and THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE VOTED HIM DOWN. His own party knows his green energy bullshit is all lies and voted to keep the tax breaks for the dreaded Big Oil. LMFAO!

[Fact Finder]

YCMTSU!

Apparently being a retard is good enough for a Supreme Court Nomination..

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to me."

Kagan made her comments at today's Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:

Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?"

Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?"

Clement: "Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument."

Kagan: "The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?

"In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.

"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."

Unbelieveable that a sitting Court Justice could be this SToOPID. Fucking gift my ass.

[RedWingFan]

YCMTSU!

Apparently being a retard is good enough for a Supreme Court Nomination..

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to me."

Kagan made her comments at today's Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:

Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?"

Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?"

Clement: "Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument."

Kagan: "The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?

"In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.

"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."

Unbelieveable that a sitting Court Justice could be this SToOPID. Fucking gift my ass.

I don't remember or haven't read back but I bet 7 Wishes was all for and defended this fools nomination.

[Ehwmatt]

I was surprised Kagan used that type of questioning yesterday considering there's already some controversy about her hearing the case and not recusing herself (given her previous role as solicitor general in the early days of the ACA's passage and subsequent challenge). Similar "failure to recuse" accusations have been lobbed at "conservatives" like Scalia, too.

But to be fair to her, in constitutional law, the "coerciveness" test is a legal standard for judging the constitutionality of conditions attached to federal grants/funds given to states. But unfortunately, the landmark case that established this test, South Dakota v. Dole, does not provide a satisfactory standard for evaluating whether a condition rises to the level of legal coerciveness such that it violates the principles of federalism. In Dole, the state challenged the federal government's threat/condition to withhold 5% of federal highway funding to any states that refused to raise the drinking age to 21. I think (and I haven't read the case in a while) the % later jumped to 10%. South Dakota still sold 3.2 beer at the time, and it challenged the condition. The court upheld the condition, but held that such conditions can go from constitutionally permissible "pressures" to comply to being constitutionally impermissible "compulsions" to comply. But it didn't really elaborate any further.

So it's fair to say that all the justices might like to refine this standard for clarity's sake (but maybe not, too... they like wiggle room). In his argument, Clement (counsel for challengers/states) nargued that the potential for total withholding of all Medicaid funds was markedly different in degree than a withholding of a mere 5-10% of such funds.

[Memorex]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

[Ehwmatt]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

I agree with one exception: a judge with a significant pecuniary stake in the case's outcome (e.g., by holding stock of a company appealing a judgment against them that will significantly alter the company's future).

[Memorex]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

I agree with one exception: a judge with a significant pecuniary stake in the case's outcome (e.g., by holding stock of a company appealing a judgment against them that will significantly alter the company's future).

Isn't that what Congress is based on? Why can't the supreme court get rich too? But I do agree.

[slucero]

Keith Olbermann fired..... AGAIN....

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... olbermann/

[Seven Wishes2]

I love how you cons, in your eagerness to line yourselves up and be gang-raped by Hannity and Limbaugh, manage to ignore actual facts.

Whether or not you delve into sematics, these are the REAL, actual FACTS:
1) Almost 500 permits have been granted JUST SINCE the BP OIL SPILL. http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Permits/Status-of-Gulf-of-Mexico-Well-Permits.aspx
2) Private or public, domestic field oil production has increased EVERY YEAR since 2008: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm
3) Drilling permits under Obama are UP THIRTY FIVE PERCENT since Bush: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.36361.File.dat/chart_2011_07.pdf
4) Refinery output has DECREASED due to the deregulation that has allowed oil companies and speculators to control the markets http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.36361.File.dat/chart_2011_07.pdf
5) American oil production is about 11 percent of the world's output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent — that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide — it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/20/national/w235136D94.DTL&type=business&ao=2

Now. Actual FACTS. Chickenhawk dittoheads.

[Seven Wishes2]

Keith Olbermann fired..... AGAIN....

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... olbermann/

The guy is a complete tool. I love what his old boss at ESPN said about him in '97..."he didn't burn his bridges...he napalmed them." Well, maybe Bill Maher needs an Ed McMahon-type to intro his monologue.

[Fact Finder]

[Fact Finder]

OBAMACARE 'EXPLODES DEFICIT'...

Study: ' Healthcare Reform' adds $530 billion in debt...

FLASHBACK - (Obama) "And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future." (Applause.)

[hoagiepete]

Why hasn't the media (and the rest of the libs) been crucifying Obama on the price of gas like they did GW?