No To Roberts
Tweet
Harry Reid takes the lead
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he is opposing John Roberts to be U.S. chief justice and lead the Supreme Court.
“No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person,” Reid of Nevada said on the floor of the Senate today. “But at the end of this process, I frankly have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.”
20 Responses to “No To Roberts”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
How much political capital is he having to spend on Judge Roberts?
Like every other proposal, Bush’s “political capital” is borrowed, with no plans to ever pay it back.
Better to see Bush spending what’s left of his much-vaunted “political capital” on defense rather than on gutting Social Security or corporate giveaway bills.
neo’s description sound like practically all forms of government spending that I can think of.
Yup- because the president refuses to make his wealthy base pay for his pork projects, like Iraq. That’s ok, because someday we’ll all be dead and our descendants can pay.
I call BS. Explain the records tax receipts then.
Explain the records tax receipts then.
This has been explained to you several times, JD. You really are uninterested in the answer.
Here’s what Greg Mankiw (look him up–he’s a conservative economist and former member of AWOL George’s admin) said on the issue:
Explain the massive borrowing from the Chinese then.
Uh oh.
I think we just caught JD…fibbing.
Explain the records tax receipts then.
Ummmm…the CBO doesn’t think there are “record tax receipts.”
CBO Historical Budget Data
Go to Table 3. Look at the years 2001-2004. No records there–it looks like tax revenues have declined.
No, Jade that chart shows record receipts- oops- wrong column, I’m looking at deficits. D’oh!
Is it possible that Rush and Hannity are lying? And JD just repeated their lie, because they believe everything they say uncritically?
Isn’t it interesting that the two greatest peace-time expansions of the economy happened after the 83 and 93 tax hikes?
“Yup- because the president refuses to make his wealthy base pay for his pork projects, like Iraq. ”
Another liberal tax lie that is repeated so often libs think it is a fact.
Here is the truth:
The top 1% of income tax payers pay 34% of all income tax.
The top 5% of income tax payers pay 54% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay a whopping 3.5% of all income tax.
But 54% isn’t enough for the top 5% to pay for your socialist eutopia, is it? You redistributionists are quite cavalier with OTHER people’s money.
Link here: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Jade, new rule. How about from now on we make the RW monkeys do the work proving their inane proclamations. After all, it’s their credibility which is in doubt.
OTOH, you’ve got to stop posting those “liberal media” links- I mean, come on, the Congressional Budget Office? Socialists if I ever saw them.
Rush, Hannity, JD lie? Say it ain’t so.
This points up yet another problem with the rightwing: they will rely on two blowhards who barely made it through High School for economic advice and analysis.
Yet, wingers like JD can’t be troubled to do a little fact-checking before asserting something that’s easily demonstrated false.
If I earn twice as much this year as last, that may be a record in revenue. But if I’m spending three times as much this year as last and I was close to the wire last year, my accountant will have a fit.
How about a chart matching revenue with spending? Then we can start talking about “records”.
Estimated tax revenues for FY 2005 are supposed to be around $2.2 trillion, which would be a record.
Flanagan strikes again!!
I was referring to the current fiscal year, but you knew that. You went and cherry picked some quarters while we were climbing out of the post bubble post 9-11 recession, and claimed to be correct. Oops! Jadegold and his cronies got caught lying. It is kind of painful after being so overtly catty, huh ?
And, jadegold, your condescending attitude is tiresome. Revenues rose then, and are rising now. Trouble is, spending seems to increase at rates equal to or greater than the growth in revenue. Maybe if they actually did start “cutting” some programs, some of your whining might have a point.
Yup- because the president refuses to make his wealthy base pay for his pork projects, like Iraq.
Another liberal tax lie that is repeated so often libs think it is a fact.
Here is the truth:
The top 1% of income tax payers pay 34% of all income tax.
The top 5% of income tax payers pay 54% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay a whopping 3.5% of all income tax.
But 54% isn t enough for the top 5% to pay for your socialist eutopia, is it? You redistributionists are quite cavalier with OTHER people s money.
Jd again using the wingnuts usual dodge when caught in an untruth-
“What I really meant is this”. Disappointing.
Estimated tax revenues for FY 2005 are supposed to be around $2.2 trillion, which would be a record.
Counting our chickenhawks before they’re hatched, are we? Since when do we get count partial year estimates as ‘records?’
Maybe we should just induct Willie Parker into the NFL Hall of Fame because he’s had two good games.
JD, you were caught lying. Time to suck it up and take it like a man.
C’mon, JD. Nobody “cherry-picked” anything here.
The “record tax receipts” you were asking about were achieved in FY 2000. For the most recently completed fiscal year, personal income tax receipts were lower by 20 percent! Corporate taxes were off by 9 percent! And that year was the best since the high water mark in 2000. Sorry.
The only thing that keeps tax receipts from being way down is an increase in social insurance taxes (up 12 percent since 2000). And we know who pays those, don’t we?
So let’s turn the question back to you: Explain the “record tax receipts”.