Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jeffislouie

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 52
41
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 14, 2008, 01:32:05 PM »
Hundreds of Economists sign a letter opposing Obama's ridiculous tax plans:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html

from that commie rag The Economist.

i like how you used 'ridiculous' and 'appalling' in the same post.

Thanks.  I like how you called the Economist a 'commie rag'.

Did you miss this sentence?
" the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans."

Just to review, 530 economists signed a statement endorsing McCain's plans and 100 (maybe more?) signed a statement saying that Obama's tax plans "are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience."

Just because I know you aren't likely to read the actual letter, here it is:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Robert Barro, Harvard University

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

Michael Block, University of Arizona

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

James Buchanan, George Mason University

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

Ted Covey, McLean VA

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

William Dewald, Ohio State University

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

Dan Feenberg, NBER

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

Kristin Forbes, MIT

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Gary Hansen, UCLA

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

Robert King, Boston University

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

Will Melick, Kenyon College

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

Jim Miller, George Mason University

Michael Moore, George Washington University

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

Tim Muris, George Mason University

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

Richard Muth, Emory University

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

William Poole, University of Delaware

Michael Porter, Harvard University

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

Richard Roll, UCLA

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

Mark Rush, University of Florida

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

Anna Schwartz, NBER

George Shultz, Stanford University

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

John Taylor, Stanford University

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

-Them some big names (Harvard, U of C, Wash U, Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia, UCLA, Yale, etc.)

See, surveys are great, but anonymous.  This here is people putting their reps on the line...

42
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 14, 2008, 12:57:38 PM »
Here's some interesting reading for you staunch Obama supporters to:
a) ignore
b) claim is racist
or
c) actually read with an open mind.

I've given up trying to convince you to reconsider, so I'll just hope that a few of you still have enough of an open mind to, you know, actually learn about your candidate:

Obama and Bush are not so far apart:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Hundreds of Economists sign a letter opposing Obama's ridiculous tax plans:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html

Iran sets Preconditions for meetings with the US - even though Obama won't:  This article is appalling because Iran has higher standards and takes a more powerful stance than a potential President does.....
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/13/iran-refuses-meet-us-without-preconditions

And some freakin' sweet Pumpkin Carving ideas (non-political, just cool):

http://flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=halloween+pumpkin&m=text

Enjoy.

43
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 07, 2008, 02:37:47 PM »
...
the prominent radical Palestinian booster and confrontational Professor Rashid Khalidi (right), then of the University of Chicago and now of Columbia University.

...

Palestinian terrorists who want to destroy Israel . . .

Excuse me?

I am also still waiting for the justification for this description, which I took as a slur.  In particular, I'd like to know how you come about the characterization of Khalidi as a terrorist and what the "(right)" following his name signifies.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57231

44
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 07, 2008, 02:33:54 PM »
[temporarily suspending ban on responses to B-dubs]

I thought INDEPENDENTS didn't like negative campaigning and scare tactics.  Whoops!

Hmm . . . where did I hear that?

Also, that Weekly Standard blog entry is idiotic.  Obama wasn't attacking Republicans for associating with Ayers.  He was pointing out that he has connections on both sides of the aisle, including strong ties to two major universities, and he is in no way the pariah the McCain camp is making him out to be.  The fact that Obama has worked with him on education and anti-poverty policy and charitable funds is non-issue.

Another misconception perpetuated by Obama.

They didn't work on improving education.  Schools didn't get dime one of the money from the CAC.  That money was doled out to outside 'partners' who were radical groups.  The CAC turned down math and science projects and instead gave money to ACORN, Wright, and other radicals/groups who were tasked not with improving the education of Chicago's youth, but with making them into radicals.

Even CNN had a report about the CAC and Obama last night.  Maybe you will pay attention when enough media outlets in the bag for Obama start following up on stories that, you know, actually discuss Obama's past.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Obama's only executive experience, his CAC work, is the one subject he has refused to discuss?  Doesn't it strike you as odd that Ayers' refuses to talk to the media and Obama, just yesterday, changed his statement from "Their old friends" to "Obama hardly knew him".

It turns out, they have a long history together.  So why are you so afraid to actually learn about it?  Better question: Why is Obama so afraid you might learn about it?

45
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 07, 2008, 02:28:49 PM »


The valid question discusses Obama's pattern of relationships with radicals.  So why ignore or minimize it?  If McCain had acquaintances with unrepentant terrorists and radical white power ministers, you know that would be an issue.  So why isn't it one for Obama?


Where is the MSM reporting about this?  I mean, of course, the actual reporting not the reporting where reporters have taken Obama's word for it while refusing to investigate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Most people in the world would argue that this man qualifies.

And I know this is off topic, and this is exactly what republicans want, but, who do you think cares more about the American people- Ayers or W?

Throughout history, the only difference between a terrorist and a hero is whose side you were on. George Washington? Terrorist. Nelson Mandela? Terrorist. Modern Day Isreali Gov't? Terrorist.

If you choose to look at it that way.

Sorry, I know this won't be accepted well, but it is the truth.


False.  Maybe most people YOU KNOW believe Bush is a terrorist.  But we both know that's complete and utter nonsense.

George Washington was not a terrorist.  He was the General of the colonial army that responded to unfair tax policy and a desire of our colony to be free of British rule.

Nelson Mandela is in no way even slightly a terroristHe tried to use peaceful means to end apartheid.

The modern day Israeli government is not terrorist.  Constantly under attack since Israel was declared a government seperate from British rule, they have taken every opportunity to bring peace to the region.  Any other analysis is flawed and exemplifies anti-semitic views. 


You may be the most misinformed person I have ever communicated with. Every bolded thing you said is unequivocally wrong. The fact that you want to vote for Mccain, to me, is reason enough to not vote for Mccain. Please learn your history lessons and stop drinking the kool aid.

And just for the record, Ayers goal was to bring about change. Not to kill. Doesn't make killing (did he kill anyone?) any more acceptable, but he didn't wanted to cause human death. That's why he was against vietnam, JIL.

Interesting.  So Bush IS a terrorist?  I'd love to hear your explanation of that, though I doubt it would be very rational.  While you are at it, please explain how Mandela and George Washington were terrorists.

Ayers didn't kill anyone (except a few of his fellow terrorists by accident when a bomb went off) because he missed, not because he didn't try. 
I watched an interview with one of the FBI agents who infiltrated the WU.  He said that Ayers planned an attack on a police station that was dangerously close to people's homes.  So he objected and Ayers told him that 'sometimes in a revolution, innocent people have to die."  Now you can pretend all you like that Ayers was a mainstream hippie anti-war protester, but the truth is that he was responsible an immense amount of violence, which he used to protest violence he disagreed with.  Most anti-war protesters and activists viewed him as dangerous and irresponsible.  They all wanted him arrested.  The fact that he didn't kill anyone (except in the accident that killed some of his bomb-making bretheren) is nothing short of a miracle.  The WU declared WAR on the United States.  They set off a bomb at the Park Station of the San Francisco police department, which left one officer mortally wounded and another severely injured.

Here's some more publicly available information from Wiki:

"Early on the morning of February 21, 1970 as his family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh at the northern tip of Manhattan. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn.
Judge Murtagh was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. The side-walk in front of his home had three sentences of blood-red graffiti: "FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS."

I know - that's shocking and obviously a racist statement!  Not really.  Here's the story:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

" Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night."

I guess trying to kill a federal Judge and his entire family is no big deal to Obama supporters, Obama and/or Bill Ayers.  At least not when an election is coming up.

From the FBI's site:

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan04/weather012904.htm

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm

Puh-Leeze.

Ayers is unrepentant for his behavior.  Obama knew exactly who he was.  Obama knows him very well.  Stop. Believing.  Convenient.  Lies.





46
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 07, 2008, 01:58:47 PM »
More commentary from my local paper about Obama and his ties to the Chicago Dirty Political Machine:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column



47
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 08:51:49 PM »


The sub-prime loans were a result of democratic policies that required banks to make said loans - if they didn't, they paid a heavy penalty.

Link?



I'd like to see that link as well, as the Predatory Mortgage Lending Practices Reduction Act and the Community Investment Act were relatively toothless, as the Federal Reserve, which was supposed to make the regulations, failed to do so until 2005.

Here's your link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/cra.htm

"The proposed regulations state that an institution rated by an agency to be in "Substantial Noncompliance" with that obligation shall be subject to enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. § 1818, which authorizes the agencies to issue cease-and-desist orders and levy civil monetary penalties. See id. at 67,480 (§ 25.6(b)). The potential monetary penalties the institutions would face range from not more than $5,000 a day for each day during which a "first tier" violation continues to a maximum daily penalty of $1,000,000 or one percent of the institution's total assets, whichever is lower, for a "third tier" violation."

"The CRA provides for enforcement only in the application context, requiring that the agencies shall take an institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its community into account when evaluating that institution's application for a deposit facility. "

In other words, the DOJ doesn't believe that CRA authorizes monetary policies, but does concede that if a bank falls below the mandated amounts, they could be denied the ability to expand, build new banks, etc.

"The CRA requires that the agencies assess financial institutions' records in this regard and consider their records when evaluating their applications for deposit facilities."



48
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 08:35:33 PM »


The valid question discusses Obama's pattern of relationships with radicals.  So why ignore or minimize it?  If McCain had acquaintances with unrepentant terrorists and radical white power ministers, you know that would be an issue.  So why isn't it one for Obama?


Where is the MSM reporting about this?  I mean, of course, the actual reporting not the reporting where reporters have taken Obama's word for it while refusing to investigate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Most people in the world would argue that this man qualifies.

And I know this is off topic, and this is exactly what republicans want, but, who do you think cares more about the American people- Ayers or W?

Throughout history, the only difference between a terrorist and a hero is whose side you were on. George Washington? Terrorist. Nelson Mandela? Terrorist. Modern Day Isreali Gov't? Terrorist.

If you choose to look at it that way.

Sorry, I know this won't be accepted well, but it is the truth.


False.  Maybe most people YOU KNOW believe Bush is a terrorist.  But we both know that's complete and utter nonsense.
George Washington was not a terrorist.  He was the General of the colonial army that responded to unfair tax policy and a desire of our colony to be free of British rule.

Nelson Mandela is in no way even slightly a terrorist.  He tried to use peaceful means to end apartheid.

The modern day Israeli government is not terrorist.  Constantly under attack since Israel was declared a government seperate from British rule, they have taken every opportunity to bring peace to the region.  Any other analysis is flawed and exemplifies anti-semitic views. 

Ayers IS an UNREPENTANT AND ADMITTED TERRORIST.  He bombed capital buildings and plotted to assasinate judges, lawyers, and government officials he deemed evil.  How can you honestly sit there and make moral equivelency arguments with any kind of straight face?  Maybe you think members of the warsaw ghetto uprising during the holocaust were terrorists too.  That's a very liberal idea there, equating any type of resistance to terrorism when it is comfortable to do so.
from wiki:
"Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days."

That exemplifies a terrorist.  His goal was to kill. 
This argument that he was or is a respected educator is a fraud perpetuated by the Obama's who, along with the media, continue to portray Ayers as a reformed, responsible member of society.  He is not.  And the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers and Obama ran together, had absolutely no quantifiable effect either way.  It didn't hurt, but it sure didn't help.  Ayers' goal with the CAC was to indoctrinate children, parents, and teachers into becoming liberal activists.  You know who got the first chunk of money from the CAC?  Ayers' and his own group.  They literally wasted millions of dollars trying to change education in Chicago into a liberal well-spring that would produce millions of far left liberal graduates that would actively advance radical leftist causes.

Of course, as I said before the Ayers' relationship in and of itself isn't enough to be much of an issue - but Obama's long list of controversial radicals IS.

Ayers, Wright, Pflager, ACORN etc.

How many nasty, awful people has he buddied up to exactly?  How many does it take before you start to get a picture of a man who makes bad choices in acquaintances and friends?

I'm going to guess once again that you missed the following information in regards to the Keating scandal:

"The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf. The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.""

He violated NO LAW or SPECIFIC RULE.

And here's a nice link:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DA133EF93AA1575AC0A966958260

"In a confidential report submitted to the committee on Sept. 10, the special counsel, Robert S. Bennett, concluded that there was not adequate evidence to merit a full-scale investigation of John Glenn, an Ohio Democrat, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, several officials said."

"If Mr. McCain is dropped from the investigation, the political implications could be significant: He is the only Republican under scrutiny, and Republicans could portray the scandal as a Democratic one."

Hmmm.  Democrats were uncomfortable with the idea of dropping the investigation of McCain because it would properly place the scandal on the plate of the Democrats.....

49
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 04:27:17 PM »
I'm no koolaid drinker, Louie.  It's all about appearances - people care more about Keating than they do Ayers, because Keating is associated with the economy.  Ayers is a relic from the '60s, when everyone was "radical" (or so history portrays it.)

I've followed the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for over a decade, Lou, so I have so much dirt on McCain, none of which will ever be used by Obama, as voters don't care about Indians (unless we're building a casino in your neighborhood.)  Obama is no saint, but McCain is as dirty as they come.  And he's mean.  And will probably be dead in a year or two from melanoma.  Then we get Palin, whose own husband consorts with domestic terrorists.  Whee!

If it weren't for Palin, I actually wouldn't want this economic mess foisted upon a Democrat.  You Republicans made the mess, you clean it up.  However, Palin sees this as part of the End Times, and god knows what she'd do.  No thank you.  The choice of Palin made an uncommitted like me write for my absentee ballot.

Sorry Fry, but this current economic downturn is certainly more due to with the democrats than the republicans.

In fact, I'd say its primarily the fault of people such as Barney Frank.

I beg to disagree, 'Fused.  I have a pretty good grasp of the economic policies of the past decade.  Not all Democrats are blameless, but this is the Republican's big shitpile.  They own it, and it's a shame we all will be feasting on it for decades to come.

While I admit that my knowledge of the economic policies of Bush/Clinton are limited, the two individuals I am relying upon for my assertion are very well versed.  One is voting McCain and the other Obama.  However, both agree that the democrats are primarily at fault.  It all goes back to the ridiculous notion that all Americans should own a home.

Yes, the push for universal home ownership was a stupid idea, but it was it was pushed by Republicans as well.  However, this all began with sub-prime, non-Freddie/Fannie mortgages - which were allowed because of the deregulation pushed by Republicans.  Then came the bundling of these mortgages in with less risky products, and selling them as secure investments - once again, pushed by Republicans. 

So much of this is Alan "there is no housing bubble" Greenspan's baby as well.

Again, false.  Greenspan warned about Freddie and Fannie being out of control.  The sub-prime loans were a result of democratic policies that required banks to make said loans - if they didn't, they paid a heavy penalty.
The 'deregulation' was pushed hard by Barney Frank.  As a matter of fact, if you actually had the facts you wouldn't make false statements like this.

John McCain called for more regulation in 2005.  Frank opposed it.

50
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 04:24:38 PM »
LOLOL!

Louie, Louie, Louie.  Wikipedia and YouTube as sources?  What are you, like fourteen?

Notice the WP warning: The neutrality of this article is disputed.



Did you look at the video or the wiki entry?
The 'neutrality' warning means that someone raised a questions about the article's neutrality.  It does not change the fact that the act existed, was sponsored by Democrats, then signed into law by a Democratic President.  

And the youtube video's are nothing more than C-Span coverage with text commentary.  Ignore the text commentary if it so disturbs you and watch Democrat after Democrat berate the regulators and insist nothing is wrong with Fannie and Freddie, while Republican after Republican called for a deeper investigation and the need for stricter oversight.

The mere fact that you don't like the sources I provide does not in any way invalidate their substance.  And I asked you to prove your point - did you?

Do us both a favor and look at what I provided before judging it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 52