Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]…
Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]
FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.
Huh. Really.
My favorite part:
FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]…
Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]
FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.
Huh. Really.
My favorite part:
FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]…
Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]
FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.
Huh. Really.
My favorite part:
FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”
ParticipantInconvenient facts
[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]
All that says is that there will be courts.
Here’s my question again. Read carefully:
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…[/quote]
Pri, it is you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
I bolded the parts where the court has authority over the matter. Because the district court is part of the federal system of courts and is considered an extension of the Supreme Court over its jurisdiction, it has authority over the President and Congress when it comes to court cases.
It’s called checks and balances. The courts have equal authority against the President and Congress. The President and Congress only have the ability to appeal, and it is then that the Supreme Court has the deciding ability.
If the President and Congress decided not to appeal, or if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, that decision would stand and effectively override the President and Congress.
And the text that highlights that authority? Let me repeat it because you obviously did not get it the first time.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
ParticipantInconvenient facts
[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]
All that says is that there will be courts.
Here’s my question again. Read carefully:
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…[/quote]
Pri, it is you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
I bolded the parts where the court has authority over the matter. Because the district court is part of the federal system of courts and is considered an extension of the Supreme Court over its jurisdiction, it has authority over the President and Congress when it comes to court cases.
It’s called checks and balances. The courts have equal authority against the President and Congress. The President and Congress only have the ability to appeal, and it is then that the Supreme Court has the deciding ability.
If the President and Congress decided not to appeal, or if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, that decision would stand and effectively override the President and Congress.
And the text that highlights that authority? Let me repeat it because you obviously did not get it the first time.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
ParticipantInconvenient facts
[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]
All that says is that there will be courts.
Here’s my question again. Read carefully:
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…[/quote]
Pri, it is you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
I bolded the parts where the court has authority over the matter. Because the district court is part of the federal system of courts and is considered an extension of the Supreme Court over its jurisdiction, it has authority over the President and Congress when it comes to court cases.
It’s called checks and balances. The courts have equal authority against the President and Congress. The President and Congress only have the ability to appeal, and it is then that the Supreme Court has the deciding ability.
If the President and Congress decided not to appeal, or if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, that decision would stand and effectively override the President and Congress.
And the text that highlights that authority? Let me repeat it because you obviously did not get it the first time.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
ParticipantInconvenient facts
[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]
All that says is that there will be courts.
Here’s my question again. Read carefully:
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…[/quote]
Pri, it is you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
I bolded the parts where the court has authority over the matter. Because the district court is part of the federal system of courts and is considered an extension of the Supreme Court over its jurisdiction, it has authority over the President and Congress when it comes to court cases.
It’s called checks and balances. The courts have equal authority against the President and Congress. The President and Congress only have the ability to appeal, and it is then that the Supreme Court has the deciding ability.
If the President and Congress decided not to appeal, or if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, that decision would stand and effectively override the President and Congress.
And the text that highlights that authority? Let me repeat it because you obviously did not get it the first time.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
ParticipantInconvenient facts
[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]
All that says is that there will be courts.
Here’s my question again. Read carefully:
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…[/quote]
Pri, it is you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
I bolded the parts where the court has authority over the matter. Because the district court is part of the federal system of courts and is considered an extension of the Supreme Court over its jurisdiction, it has authority over the President and Congress when it comes to court cases.
It’s called checks and balances. The courts have equal authority against the President and Congress. The President and Congress only have the ability to appeal, and it is then that the Supreme Court has the deciding ability.
If the President and Congress decided not to appeal, or if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, that decision would stand and effectively override the President and Congress.
And the text that highlights that authority? Let me repeat it because you obviously did not get it the first time.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
ParticipantThe poor are not getting poorer
By Steven G. Horwitz
In the latest version of its annual report “The State of Working America,” the Economic Policy Institute once again argues that the gap between America’s rich and poor is widening. Using a variety of data, the institute argues that a few are profiting at the expense of many.
Does this narrative actually reflect the state of America’s workers? My research suggests it doesn’t. While there’s no doubt that some Americans remain far wealthier than others, a closer look at the data shows that the prosperity gains of the last few decades have been shared by workers of all income levels.
Much of the Economic Policy Institute’s argument involves comparing the income or wealth gains of various groups across the years. For example, it reports that in real dollars, the bottom fifth of households earned an average of only $200 a year more in 2005 than they did in 1979.
At first glance, that seems awful. However, the comparison tells us nothing about how individual households fared over time. That’s because the households that occupied the bottom fifth in 2005 are not the same as those that occupied it in 1979.
If we really want to know what happened to the poor of 1979, we need to be able to track specific households through time. Fortunately, we can. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, households in the bottom fifth in 1975 earned an average of almost $28,000 more per year by 1991, adjusted for inflation. According to U.S. Treasury data, a whopping 86 percent of households in the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.
The problem with the data in “The State of Working America” is that it does not account for the fact that individual households move up and out of poverty and are then “replaced” by different households. Most of the households in the bottom fifth are made up of people who have recently entered the labor market and are on the first rung of the income ladder, such as recent high school graduates and new immigrants. The vast majority of American households do move up, and over the last 30 years most Americans have gotten significantly richer in absolute terms.
Granted, even if everyone is better off, it’s still possible that the rich-poor income gap has widened. But simply measuring income and wealth tells us very little about the lifestyle of typical Americans. For example, poor Americans today are more likely to own basic household goods – such as washing machines, dishwashers, televisions, refrigerators, and toasters – than average Americans were in 1973.
The gap in personal conveniences has clearly narrowed over time. Consider that both Bill Gates and more than 80 percent of poor American households own cars – though likely differing in quality. Fifty or 100 years ago, the difference would not have been in the quality of car, but in owning a car at all.
Yes, there are more Americans in poverty during a recession – some in deep poverty – as the institute’s data shows. But it also shows that since about 1980, the share of the population in extreme poverty has hovered between 5 and 6 percent. In other words, there’s no long-term upward trend in the percentage of households living in extreme poverty.
The reality of the modern U.S. economy is that upward mobility is alive and well. One look around at even the bottom fifth of American households today – where children are watching cable TV, surfing the Web, or chatting on cell phones while Dad takes free generic medicine and Mom heats something up in a microwave – shows the poor are hardly getting poorer.
ParticipantThe poor are not getting poorer
By Steven G. Horwitz
In the latest version of its annual report “The State of Working America,” the Economic Policy Institute once again argues that the gap between America’s rich and poor is widening. Using a variety of data, the institute argues that a few are profiting at the expense of many.
Does this narrative actually reflect the state of America’s workers? My research suggests it doesn’t. While there’s no doubt that some Americans remain far wealthier than others, a closer look at the data shows that the prosperity gains of the last few decades have been shared by workers of all income levels.
Much of the Economic Policy Institute’s argument involves comparing the income or wealth gains of various groups across the years. For example, it reports that in real dollars, the bottom fifth of households earned an average of only $200 a year more in 2005 than they did in 1979.
At first glance, that seems awful. However, the comparison tells us nothing about how individual households fared over time. That’s because the households that occupied the bottom fifth in 2005 are not the same as those that occupied it in 1979.
If we really want to know what happened to the poor of 1979, we need to be able to track specific households through time. Fortunately, we can. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, households in the bottom fifth in 1975 earned an average of almost $28,000 more per year by 1991, adjusted for inflation. According to U.S. Treasury data, a whopping 86 percent of households in the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.
The problem with the data in “The State of Working America” is that it does not account for the fact that individual households move up and out of poverty and are then “replaced” by different households. Most of the households in the bottom fifth are made up of people who have recently entered the labor market and are on the first rung of the income ladder, such as recent high school graduates and new immigrants. The vast majority of American households do move up, and over the last 30 years most Americans have gotten significantly richer in absolute terms.
Granted, even if everyone is better off, it’s still possible that the rich-poor income gap has widened. But simply measuring income and wealth tells us very little about the lifestyle of typical Americans. For example, poor Americans today are more likely to own basic household goods – such as washing machines, dishwashers, televisions, refrigerators, and toasters – than average Americans were in 1973.
The gap in personal conveniences has clearly narrowed over time. Consider that both Bill Gates and more than 80 percent of poor American households own cars – though likely differing in quality. Fifty or 100 years ago, the difference would not have been in the quality of car, but in owning a car at all.
Yes, there are more Americans in poverty during a recession – some in deep poverty – as the institute’s data shows. But it also shows that since about 1980, the share of the population in extreme poverty has hovered between 5 and 6 percent. In other words, there’s no long-term upward trend in the percentage of households living in extreme poverty.
The reality of the modern U.S. economy is that upward mobility is alive and well. One look around at even the bottom fifth of American households today – where children are watching cable TV, surfing the Web, or chatting on cell phones while Dad takes free generic medicine and Mom heats something up in a microwave – shows the poor are hardly getting poorer.
ParticipantThe poor are not getting poorer
By Steven G. Horwitz
In the latest version of its annual report “The State of Working America,” the Economic Policy Institute once again argues that the gap between America’s rich and poor is widening. Using a variety of data, the institute argues that a few are profiting at the expense of many.
Does this narrative actually reflect the state of America’s workers? My research suggests it doesn’t. While there’s no doubt that some Americans remain far wealthier than others, a closer look at the data shows that the prosperity gains of the last few decades have been shared by workers of all income levels.
Much of the Economic Policy Institute’s argument involves comparing the income or wealth gains of various groups across the years. For example, it reports that in real dollars, the bottom fifth of households earned an average of only $200 a year more in 2005 than they did in 1979.
At first glance, that seems awful. However, the comparison tells us nothing about how individual households fared over time. That’s because the households that occupied the bottom fifth in 2005 are not the same as those that occupied it in 1979.
If we really want to know what happened to the poor of 1979, we need to be able to track specific households through time. Fortunately, we can. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, households in the bottom fifth in 1975 earned an average of almost $28,000 more per year by 1991, adjusted for inflation. According to U.S. Treasury data, a whopping 86 percent of households in the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.
The problem with the data in “The State of Working America” is that it does not account for the fact that individual households move up and out of poverty and are then “replaced” by different households. Most of the households in the bottom fifth are made up of people who have recently entered the labor market and are on the first rung of the income ladder, such as recent high school graduates and new immigrants. The vast majority of American households do move up, and over the last 30 years most Americans have gotten significantly richer in absolute terms.
Granted, even if everyone is better off, it’s still possible that the rich-poor income gap has widened. But simply measuring income and wealth tells us very little about the lifestyle of typical Americans. For example, poor Americans today are more likely to own basic household goods – such as washing machines, dishwashers, televisions, refrigerators, and toasters – than average Americans were in 1973.
The gap in personal conveniences has clearly narrowed over time. Consider that both Bill Gates and more than 80 percent of poor American households own cars – though likely differing in quality. Fifty or 100 years ago, the difference would not have been in the quality of car, but in owning a car at all.
Yes, there are more Americans in poverty during a recession – some in deep poverty – as the institute’s data shows. But it also shows that since about 1980, the share of the population in extreme poverty has hovered between 5 and 6 percent. In other words, there’s no long-term upward trend in the percentage of households living in extreme poverty.
The reality of the modern U.S. economy is that upward mobility is alive and well. One look around at even the bottom fifth of American households today – where children are watching cable TV, surfing the Web, or chatting on cell phones while Dad takes free generic medicine and Mom heats something up in a microwave – shows the poor are hardly getting poorer.
ParticipantThe poor are not getting poorer
By Steven G. Horwitz
In the latest version of its annual report “The State of Working America,” the Economic Policy Institute once again argues that the gap between America’s rich and poor is widening. Using a variety of data, the institute argues that a few are profiting at the expense of many.
Does this narrative actually reflect the state of America’s workers? My research suggests it doesn’t. While there’s no doubt that some Americans remain far wealthier than others, a closer look at the data shows that the prosperity gains of the last few decades have been shared by workers of all income levels.
Much of the Economic Policy Institute’s argument involves comparing the income or wealth gains of various groups across the years. For example, it reports that in real dollars, the bottom fifth of households earned an average of only $200 a year more in 2005 than they did in 1979.
At first glance, that seems awful. However, the comparison tells us nothing about how individual households fared over time. That’s because the households that occupied the bottom fifth in 2005 are not the same as those that occupied it in 1979.
If we really want to know what happened to the poor of 1979, we need to be able to track specific households through time. Fortunately, we can. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, households in the bottom fifth in 1975 earned an average of almost $28,000 more per year by 1991, adjusted for inflation. According to U.S. Treasury data, a whopping 86 percent of households in the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.
The problem with the data in “The State of Working America” is that it does not account for the fact that individual households move up and out of poverty and are then “replaced” by different households. Most of the households in the bottom fifth are made up of people who have recently entered the labor market and are on the first rung of the income ladder, such as recent high school graduates and new immigrants. The vast majority of American households do move up, and over the last 30 years most Americans have gotten significantly richer in absolute terms.
Granted, even if everyone is better off, it’s still possible that the rich-poor income gap has widened. But simply measuring income and wealth tells us very little about the lifestyle of typical Americans. For example, poor Americans today are more likely to own basic household goods – such as washing machines, dishwashers, televisions, refrigerators, and toasters – than average Americans were in 1973.
The gap in personal conveniences has clearly narrowed over time. Consider that both Bill Gates and more than 80 percent of poor American households own cars – though likely differing in quality. Fifty or 100 years ago, the difference would not have been in the quality of car, but in owning a car at all.
Yes, there are more Americans in poverty during a recession – some in deep poverty – as the institute’s data shows. But it also shows that since about 1980, the share of the population in extreme poverty has hovered between 5 and 6 percent. In other words, there’s no long-term upward trend in the percentage of households living in extreme poverty.
The reality of the modern U.S. economy is that upward mobility is alive and well. One look around at even the bottom fifth of American households today – where children are watching cable TV, surfing the Web, or chatting on cell phones while Dad takes free generic medicine and Mom heats something up in a microwave – shows the poor are hardly getting poorer.
ParticipantThe poor are not getting poorer
By Steven G. Horwitz
In the latest version of its annual report “The State of Working America,” the Economic Policy Institute once again argues that the gap between America’s rich and poor is widening. Using a variety of data, the institute argues that a few are profiting at the expense of many.
Does this narrative actually reflect the state of America’s workers? My research suggests it doesn’t. While there’s no doubt that some Americans remain far wealthier than others, a closer look at the data shows that the prosperity gains of the last few decades have been shared by workers of all income levels.
Much of the Economic Policy Institute’s argument involves comparing the income or wealth gains of various groups across the years. For example, it reports that in real dollars, the bottom fifth of households earned an average of only $200 a year more in 2005 than they did in 1979.
At first glance, that seems awful. However, the comparison tells us nothing about how individual households fared over time. That’s because the households that occupied the bottom fifth in 2005 are not the same as those that occupied it in 1979.
If we really want to know what happened to the poor of 1979, we need to be able to track specific households through time. Fortunately, we can. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, households in the bottom fifth in 1975 earned an average of almost $28,000 more per year by 1991, adjusted for inflation. According to U.S. Treasury data, a whopping 86 percent of households in the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.
The problem with the data in “The State of Working America” is that it does not account for the fact that individual households move up and out of poverty and are then “replaced” by different households. Most of the households in the bottom fifth are made up of people who have recently entered the labor market and are on the first rung of the income ladder, such as recent high school graduates and new immigrants. The vast majority of American households do move up, and over the last 30 years most Americans have gotten significantly richer in absolute terms.
Granted, even if everyone is better off, it’s still possible that the rich-poor income gap has widened. But simply measuring income and wealth tells us very little about the lifestyle of typical Americans. For example, poor Americans today are more likely to own basic household goods – such as washing machines, dishwashers, televisions, refrigerators, and toasters – than average Americans were in 1973.
The gap in personal conveniences has clearly narrowed over time. Consider that both Bill Gates and more than 80 percent of poor American households own cars – though likely differing in quality. Fifty or 100 years ago, the difference would not have been in the quality of car, but in owning a car at all.
Yes, there are more Americans in poverty during a recession – some in deep poverty – as the institute’s data shows. But it also shows that since about 1980, the share of the population in extreme poverty has hovered between 5 and 6 percent. In other words, there’s no long-term upward trend in the percentage of households living in extreme poverty.
The reality of the modern U.S. economy is that upward mobility is alive and well. One look around at even the bottom fifth of American households today – where children are watching cable TV, surfing the Web, or chatting on cell phones while Dad takes free generic medicine and Mom heats something up in a microwave – shows the poor are hardly getting poorer.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?
[/quote]Article 3
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
-
AuthorPosts
