Top economists overwhelmingly back stimulus
Two important questions with relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign:
1.) Did the 2009 stimulus bill create jobs and lower the unemployment rate, or was it a waste of taxpayers’ money?
2.) In the final accounting, will the benefits of the Obama stimulus package end up outweighing its costs and risks?
The University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business put those questions to more than 40 of the top economists in the country, representing a wide range of viewpoints.
(The Booth School itself, one of the most respected business schools in the country, has long been associated with a more conservative emphasis on free markets).
Here’s what they found:
“Question A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Agree or disagree?”
Eighty percent agreed. Four percent disagreed. And the two who disagreed acknowledged that they were far from certain in their opinion.
The results of the second question, while less overwhelming, were still strongly supportive of the policy:
“Question B: Taking into account all of the ARRA’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs. Agree or disagree?”
Forty-six percent agreed; just 12 percent disagreed. Another 29 percent said they were uncertain or ventured no opinion.
By a 4-1 margin, in a poll conducted by a respected institution with a conservative reputation, a cross section of the nation’s most respected economists believe that the stimulus would prove to be a net positive for the economy, even after it is paid back. By a margin of 20-1, they believe that it produced jobs and lowered the unemployment rate.
Of course, I understand that such things must be weighed against the fact that Rush and Sean have very different opinions.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
729 comments Add your comment
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 21st, 2012
4:53 pm
Brosephus™’
I hear you and I agree.
Midori
February 21st, 2012
4:53 pm
Mrs. G — I think it was JayWriter.
Bro – can’t pull that video up here – will have to wait until I get home
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
February 21st, 2012
4:54 pm
Brosephus™ – Jackassery is as jackassery does!!!
February 21st, 2012
3:49 pm
We should sue them for negligence…all of them..in carrying out the oath of office and wasting our money with this…garbage…
Do you not think that there are females who feel the same exact way about men telling them what they can and can not do to their bodies?
I think he was including the R’s for introducing the bill about banning abortions after 20 weeks as well as the D’s position on neutering.
He was they both are stupid. I think.
(ir)Rational
February 21st, 2012
4:54 pm
Y’all have a good evening. I’m heading home.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
4:54 pm
“Fair enough. How, then, do you apply this principle of right and wrong in the way of which you speak? What are the issues and concerns thereunto pertaining as you see them, please?”
The changing age of viability, after which an abortion becomes the taking of life. That, in my view, is not merely a refinement of the law to cover hitherto unconsidered possibilities. The very fact that what used to be an acceptable termination of organic life might now be considered the murder of a human being ought suggests there is something wrong, in this case, with tying right and wrong to available technology.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
February 21st, 2012
4:55 pm
Midori
February 21st, 2012
3:49 pm
ok — this HAS to be said: PLEASE keep Democrat’s High Gas Prices AWAY from sharp objects!!
No! Let him loose in a room FULL of them
Brosephus™ - Jackassery is as jackassery does!!!
February 21st, 2012
4:55 pm
At least some new people showed up today. True, they ain’t exackly Norman Einsteins, but they tried real hard. I can see people like them holding a snipe bag at midnight in some deep, dark woods.
Dammit, that’s funny!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
4:56 pm
Tom(independent) — “Joe Hussein Mama – Jay Writer is exactly right on the money.”
If he doesn’t want or can’t take the clown gig, would you be interested? We need the clown to do a clean show (make balloon animals, tell kid-safe jokes, maybe some simple magic tricks) for up to an hour. And you can have all the hot dogs, burgers, cake and ice cream you can eat.
What do you charge for that? We need to know so we can compare prices.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
4:58 pm
md “……credit card rates went up as a direct cause of this Admin…..”
Convenient excuse. Given the hit to banks’ revenue, they were going to find additional marginal revenue somewhere. The increased bank regulations just gave them an opportunity to point the finger elsewhere.
Brosephus™ - Jackassery is as jackassery does!!!
February 21st, 2012
4:58 pm
josef
Well, you do hang out so far on that left fringe that you could be coming around from the right.
————————–
Midori
It’s the old skit from SNL where Eddie Murphy spent a day as a White man. I still laugh at that one.
————————–
YOUR party @ 4:54
If that was his intent, then I’d agree. Both are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Acer706
February 21st, 2012
5:01 pm
Was the benefit worth the cost? No one doubts that it benefited… How could $270BILLION not benefit someone or thing?
md
February 21st, 2012
5:02 pm
“Convenient excuse. Given the hit to banks’ revenue, they were going to find additional marginal revenue somewhere. The increased bank regulations just gave them an opportunity to point the finger elsewhere.”
Don’t agree……..yes, they took a hit……but then took another hit by being forced to not cover the costs of their deadbeats……
Not to worry, we have it covered……we being anybody with credit cards that actually pay their bills.
josef
February 21st, 2012
5:03 pm
BROSEPHUS
That must be it. Shoot, if Bush Lite Obama is a radical, leftist Marxist…
Brosephus™ - Jackassery is as jackassery does!!!
February 21st, 2012
5:07 pm
josef
That’s the only logical explanation I can come up with. You know that if you take off in a plane going to the left, you’ll eventually come around from the right if you go around the world. As evident here, there are more than a few who are so extreme to one side that they’re probably one step away from coming around from the other side.
jm
February 21st, 2012
5:16 pm
“Um…I don’t believe Obama has raised any taxes since he’s been in office. ”
You’d be wrong sir. Pea is so often wrong.
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
5:17 pm
As a retired Vietnam Vet, I say Joe Hussein Mama. you are a disgrace to the USA! Are you a real citizen or an occu-tard type. I’m no clown but I bet I know who is! You are just the type scum-bucket I wouldn’t mind running across some day!
jm
February 21st, 2012
5:19 pm
for the forgetful: your stocks and bonds will now be paying medicare tax
“In this posting I will examine one of the more controversial provisions of the health care reform package, namely, the 3.8% surtax on unearned income which is to be used to help fund Medicare benefits in the future. ”
http://taxation.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/5798-New-3.8-Medicare-Surtax-on-Unearned-Income.html
md
February 21st, 2012
5:19 pm
“You know that if you take off in a plane going to the left, you’ll eventually come around from the right if you go around the world.”
Now that would depend on whether one is facing frontward or backward when that plane comes back around.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:19 pm
Towncrier — “The changing age of viability, after which an abortion becomes the taking of life. That, in my view, is not merely a refinement of the law to cover hitherto unconsidered possibilities. The very fact that what used to be an acceptable termination of organic life might now be considered the murder of a human being ought suggests there is something wrong, in this case, with tying right and wrong to available technology.”
My personal view has always been that life does not commence until birth; that legally, a fetus should not be considered “alive” until it is a separate individual, whole and entire. That’s not to impose a moral imperative on anyone; a woman or couple are free, of course, to consider their fetus a person and proceed accordingly from whatever point they wish in its development. However, IMO, the fetus shouldn’t legally be a ‘person’ until after it’s born. That eliminates the technological issue.
What are your thoughts on that, please?
Anti-choice ranters, spare me your vitriol and bible scripture. You’ll get no traction with them and I won’t bother to engage you if you post it.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:20 pm
md: science is now saying life begins when that sperm and egg have a happy moment
Science says no such thing. If you’re right about this, then prove it. Otherwise stop peddling opinion as science.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:21 pm
Tom(Independent) — “As a retired Vietnam Vet, I say Joe Hussein Mama. you are a disgrace to the USA!”
And as a disabled Army Vet, I say take a flying leap, pal.
And watch it with the real-life suggestions of aggression on other posters. That gets you kicked off this board real quick.
TaxPayer
February 21st, 2012
5:21 pm
The economy is getting better all the time, Republicans.
Don’t worry, be happy. – Thomas Jefferson’s inner Reggae voice
Paul
February 21st, 2012
5:22 pm
Time for some good news.
Supreme Court declines to hear Arlington case on accessible sidewalks
In what could be a major financial blow to the nation’s cities, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal by the city of Arlington to block a lawsuit by a quadriplegic suing over the lack of accessible sidewalks and curb cuts.
Richard Frame, a quadriplegic for 12 years, sued the city of Arlington alleging that when it built or altered sidewalks and curbs in some areas, it did not make them accessible, violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Other plaintiffs from Arlington joined the suit, alleging problems such as missing or badly sloped curb ramps; impassable, noncontiguous, broken or nonexistent sidewalks; and inadequate handicapped parking that made it difficult for them to go about their everyday lives.
“The court’s decision was right for the city, for Texas and for the country,” said David Ferleger, the attorney from Philadelphia who was representing Frame before the court. “Keeping people with disabilities off sidewalks is immoral, bad public policy and harmful to the national economy…
“A federal district court dismissed the case, saying Frame had waited too long after the work had been completed to sue, and initially a panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed. But a rehearing of the case by the full court, vacated that decision.
The majority opinion by the 5th Circuit stated that cities are to use “any and all means” to make sidewalks accessible. Though the court wrote that a city’s obligation is not “boundless” and that a city should not be forced to take on undue financial burden, it can “avoid liability whenever it chooses simply by building sidewalks right the first time or by fixing its original unlawful construction.”
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/21/3751591/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear.html
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:22 pm
Santorum is against doing things in the sexual realm that do not produce or potentially produce children. In that context, vasectomies, hysterectomies, condoms, and contraception should all be illegal.
jm
February 21st, 2012
5:22 pm
md 5:19 – since planes fly slower than the earth rotates, it would be more accurate to say that if you start going left, the earth will eventually arrive in front of you after you’ve flown about 1/2 an earth rotation (depending on your flight speed)
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:23 pm
Toncirer: Privacy is part of liberty. You cannot have liberty without some amount of privacy. You also cannot have many of the constitutional protections without privacy.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
5:25 pm
Tom
“As a retired Vietnam Vet, I say Joe Hussein Mama. you are a disgrace to the USA! ”
I bet you say the same thing about General Merrill McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the USAF, who worked for Pres Obama’s election and opposed Sen John McCain.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:25 pm
Towncrier: Laws against theft and murder are designed to help protect the individual from things that he or she would not want done to them. Has nothing to do with morals.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:26 pm
Adam — “Santorum is against doing things in the sexual realm that do not produce or potentially produce children.”
Love to see him show us all where that’s a function or power of government granted to lawmakers in the Constitution by We The People.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:29 pm
JHM: uh…. CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
5:31 pm
Yeah, it was all shovel ready.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:32 pm
Adam — “JHM: uh…. CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!”
Oh, in that case, it should be even *easier* for him to show it to us in the Constitution.
GT
February 21st, 2012
5:34 pm
If the numbers are 9 or 90% the point of this exercise is to point out that no matter the measuring stick the patient is improving. If the numbers are higher coming out the same numbers going into this recession during the Bush administration must have been higher than reported too. O has never celebrated this like your boy Bush dancing around on an aircraft carrier, celebrating a war far from won and which thousands of Americans lives would be lost after his declaration of victory. Obama’s job is to fix the problem which he is doing with a mature manner, the same manner he displayed killing bin laden. This is not a reality show for votes we have here, it is real life and we need an adult driving the car, we have that in Obama.
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
5:37 pm
The stimulus was borrowed money.
Brosephus™ - Jackassery is as jackassery does!!!
February 21st, 2012
5:37 pm
md
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
5:40 pm
“My personal view has always been that life does not commence until birth; that legally, a fetus should not be considered “alive” until it is a separate individual, whole and entire. That’s not to impose a moral imperative on anyone; a woman or couple are free, of course, to consider their fetus a person and proceed accordingly from whatever point they wish in its development. However, IMO, the fetus shouldn’t legally be a ‘person’ until after it’s born. That eliminates the technological issue.
What are your thoughts on that, please?”
I agree that it is best to have a clear line of demarcation. Mine would go to the point of conception. Just from the physical evidence itself, it is very hard for me to conclude that a seven or eight month fetus that is clearly viable is not a person. But I also not an atheist so I believe life is not merely biological. Of course, if the truth be told, I think a good many of the abortions now performed (if not the vast majority of them) are driven by the desire to avert unwanted consequences of casual, unprotected sex. So abortion is hardly, in my view, a good or proper solution to that problem. Contraception is the best solution. It’s not foolproof but goes a very long way to eliminating the need for abortions. I don’t, in other words, think we should make laws that enable people to shirk personal responsibility. I do believe, however, that an aborted child is better than an unwanted one. What a mess we human make of things!
md
February 21st, 2012
5:41 pm
“Science says no such thing. If you’re right about this, then prove it. Otherwise stop peddling opinion as science.”
Already posted those sources Adam…..if you don’t believe it, go back and find it or google it yourself. There are plenty of respected people in the field that now believe conception is the “beginning” of human life. Stage one if you prefer.
md
February 21st, 2012
5:41 pm
jm,
The point was left and right reverse if one turns around.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
5:42 pm
Orange12
The Defense budget is borrowed money.
Agriculture subsidies are borrowed money.
Big Oil subsidies are borrowed money.
Building and repairing roads is borrowed money.
Food inspections is borrowed money.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
5:44 pm
“There are plenty of respected people in the field that now believe conception is the “beginning” of human life. Stage one if you prefer.”
Yeah, Adam, and plenty of people go against God’s will with prenatal care and neonatal intensive care units and all that manmade intervention that interferes with what God wants to have happen to that life.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:44 pm
md: There are plenty of respected people in the field that now believe conception is the “beginning” of human life.
That has nothing to do with science proving life begins at conception. And I have seen your so called sources, and they do not make your point. “Life” is always going to be an opinion when it comes to where it begins. It’s a metaphysical, not a scientific, concept.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
5:45 pm
“Towncrier: Laws against theft and murder are designed to help protect the individual from things that he or she would not want done to them. Has nothing to do with morals.”
Sorry…we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. To say that laws have “nothing to do with morals” implies there is no real correlation between the two and, in that, I think you would find yourself in the distinct minority.
Tom Middleton
February 21st, 2012
5:45 pm
And there it is, Jay. Nothing this administration has done or will do in the coming year will be called good by those trying to replace him, but it has done plenty as most of us know.
And if it wasn’t for the fact that all they want to do once in office is return to the principles they followed under George W. Bush, that crashed our economy and threw us into a record deficit and debt, it might be acceptable on some level.
But it isn’t, and if there’s one reason why our beloved America can’t get on a stable path to the future for all time to come, it’s because we keep electing the opposition, without regard to what it represents in real-world terms or even what it’s chances are of success.
But one thing is certain. If we do that this time – this election – we will have hell to pay. For if we put back into power those who put us into mess in the first place, we will not only get more and more of it (for it’s all that they know), but we will get it for a very long time to come.
And given the Republican Party’s propensity for authoritarian control once in power, by-passing our democracy every single chance it gets, “We The People” will be the big-time losers and regret it like we have never regretted anything before!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:45 pm
Towncrier — “Contraception is the best solution. It’s not foolproof but goes a very long way to eliminating the need for abortions.”
Indeed. I think it’s probably the single *best* means by which to reduce the demand/need for abortions, and as such, I’m baffled by why some Americans oppose it so vehemently.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
5:49 pm
“Toncirer: Privacy is part of liberty. You cannot have liberty without some amount of privacy. You also cannot have many of the constitutional protections without privacy.”
Fine. Then let us pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee privacy. The SCOTUS, however, has no constitutional authority to establish such a right. Or do you think that it should just make up the laws as it goes along?
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:49 pm
Towncrier: Whether or not I am in the minority in my viewpoint does not say whether or not I am right. I am not saying ALL laws have nothing to do with morality, but specifically those two – which are regularly attributed falsely to morality because they have been laws longer than recorded history so people have some sort of attachment to making them mystical moral laws. In fact, they came about out of the human genetic trait of tribe mentality. Within a society, the tribe takes care of its own and protects against others. Theft and murder are actions taken usually be groups outside of the tribe, but can also happen within the tribe and it was decided that they should be punished if they occurred to help prevent it from happening again so all could retain personal property and life. Later, the tribe became as large (for some people) as the entire human race, or perhaps just the country you live in.
Now, if you don’t believe all that, fine. But there’s plenty of actual evidence to back up my position.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
Towncrier: The SCOTUS didn’t make up privacy, they took it as part of existing liberties.
md
February 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
“Life” is always going to be an opinion when it comes to where it begins. It’s a metaphysical, not a scientific, concept.”
So says Adam’s opinion………
Sorry Adam, I’ll tend to lean toward actual folks studying medicine and genetics vs your opinion….thanks though.
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
Joe Hussein – Take it any way you like bub, every thing you post is always disguisting, how anyone like you and your views could have ever been in the military is beyond me. Using the middle name Hussein tells me alot about you!! Your hero Barrack(former well-known Community Organizer) also know as the Food Stamp President, is tearing this country down! Of course He does not believe in what former President John Kennedy(Democrat) famous words “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”!! Now that is a man I can admire not some draft dodger who used college as his escape clause!!
Jay
February 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
Crier, what do you think the Founding Fathers meant by the Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:51 pm
Also, Towncrier, just because something isn’t in the constitution does NOT mean that it’s not a right. That’s in the 9th Amendment.
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
Paul @ 5:42
Right Paul! So how can anyone say the syimulus worked. It did not get the desired effect of producing a number of long term employment for out of work people. The ones who did get hired were getting paid a fair salary but the number hired equaled out to over a million dollars per person in the long run. That is what it cost to hire one individual. Is that cost effective? The only thing the stimulus did was make our children’s, Children’s children head over heels in debt before they are even born. Think about that.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
“Indeed. I think it’s probably the single *best* means by which to reduce the demand/need for abortions, and as such, I’m baffled by why some Americans oppose it so vehemently.”
It is the folly inherent in our species, seen most prominently in teenagers but also in adults who don’t mature beyond the teenage years. The folly that says, “yeah, I know I should do such and such, but I don’t want to….”
md
February 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
“Yeah, Adam, and plenty of people go against God’s will with prenatal care and neonatal intensive care units and all that manmade intervention that interferes with what God wants to have happen to that life.”
And what does that have to do with anything that I posted??
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
Paul @ 5:42
Right Paul! So how can anyone say the syimulus worked. It did not get the desired effect of producing a number of long term employment for out of work people. The ones who did get hired were getting paid a fair salary but the number hired equaled out to over a million dollars per person in the long run. That is what it cost to hire one individual. Is that cost effective? The only thing the stimulus did was make our children’s, Children’s children head over heels in debt before they are even born. Think about that.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
Towncrier — “Fine. Then let us pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee privacy.”
Are you suggesting there’s some sort of qualitative difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights?
“The SCOTUS, however, has no constitutional authority to establish such a right.”
Some legal scholars claims that’s exactly where the right to privacy came from — the SCOTUS creating it out of thin air.
“Or do you think that it should just make up the laws as it goes along?”
The Constitution is pretty clear on the point that the enumerated rights are not an exhaustive list of rights possessed by We The People.
Martin Williams
February 21st, 2012
5:54 pm
Some people need to look up the meaning of the word socialism in terms of running a nation. Some are calling the president a socialist and wants to push this country to be like Europe per Mitt Romney. Well folks, if you don’t know, the United States of America is the biggest socialist nation on planet earth and will give you two key reasons. First, we spend the biggest on defense and we have something call social security. If that is not enough, we also have medicare/medicaid. You need more reasons why we are the biggest socialist nation, the best Congress money can BUY.
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
5:54 pm
Sorry for the double post.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
5:55 pm
Tom(Independent) — “Joe Hussein – Take it any way you like bub, every thing you post is always disguisting”
Then don’t read what I post if it hurts your tender feefees so much, Pinky.
“how anyone like you and your views could have ever been in the military is beyond me.”
I got in the usual way. I volunteered.
“Using the middle name Hussein tells me alot about you!! Your hero Barrack(former well-known Community Organizer) also know as the Food Stamp President, is tearing this country down! Of course He does not believe in what former President John Kennedy(Democrat) famous words “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”!! Now that is a man I can admire not some draft dodger who used college as his escape clause!!”
Did you have anything substantive to add, Tom, or are you just going to rant and rave some more?
md
February 21st, 2012
5:56 pm
Here Adam, take it up with him……you can compare your experiments with his:
“Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.””
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:56 pm
md: So says Adam’s opinion………
Sorry Adam, I’ll tend to lean toward actual folks studying medicine and genetics vs your opinion….thanks though.
And it is your opinion, and the OPINION of these scientists that life begins at conception. But none of it is scientific proof or even so much as a scientific theory. I’ll tend to lean towards people who actually make testable hypotheses and peer reviewed studies, rather than opinion. Thanks though.
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
5:57 pm
Paul@5:25 – I do not support or like Sen McCain views. Recently he stated we need to continue to support financially Egypt’s military and govt to a tune of several billion dollars. Our money needs to stay home and concentrate on jobs and making the economy better for our citizens..
Adam
February 21st, 2012
5:58 pm
Oh gee that settles it then. One guy who simply states “life” is testable
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
5:58 pm
“Are you suggesting there’s some sort of qualitative difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights?”
Yes. The former are defined and known and the latter are not. Can you imagine buying a house to which the owner reserved “unenumerated rights”?
“Some legal scholars claims that’s exactly where the right to privacy came from — the SCOTUS creating it out of thin air.”
Not out of thin air per se, but it seems to me much more reliant on precedent than the Constitution.
“The Constitution is pretty clear on the point that the enumerated rights are not an exhaustive list of rights possessed by We The People.”
Yes..but I don’t think that means we can thereby make up whatever rights we want to and claim they are covered by the Constitution. In my view, that passage signals that more enumerated rights may and should be added to the Constitution as the Congress (not the SCOTUS) decides.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
6:00 pm
md — “Here Adam, take it up with him……you can compare your experiments with his:”
I’m pretty sure that one physician doesn’t determine policy for all physicians.
Surprised I have to tell you that, md.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
6:02 pm
“I’ll tend to lean towards people who actually make testable hypotheses and peer reviewed studies, rather than opinion.”
Well, that unfortunately applies to so little of what people – even you – espouse as knowledge. I mean, how much of what you “know” has been independently and scientifically validated? I think
the reality is that all of us are more or less reliant upon our beliefs, however formulated.
josef
February 21st, 2012
6:03 pm
Well, I see the constitutional lawyers are all up in here again,,,Where’s Obama when you need him?
BROSEPHUS
Are you still in the building?
GT
February 21st, 2012
6:04 pm
“Borrow money” as if the public has not made a false impression to the world of its wealth in the last decades with “borrowed money”. I love these conservatives who drape themselves with Rolex watches and fancy cars and houses all bought with credit which allowed the seller to make false profits on easy credit and then to raise their voices against borrowed money for the betterment of the country. This selfish action of this group is what caused the recession we suffer today, the lying to one’s self and trying to keep up with the Jones on credit cards and 100% no doc loans. If that hadn’t contributed to a majority of our pain, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. You set us up like an entrapment, then have all the answers like a third party witness with no dog in the hunt. The generation before us in the 50s had money, but would have been ashame to display it like this crowd. Big hat and no cattle was called pretty quick in those days, now days they even run for public office.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
6:05 pm
Towncrier — “Yes. The former are defined and known and the latter are not. Can you imagine buying a house to which the owner reserved “unenumerated rights”?
Specious example. Any supposed unenumerated rights would be subject to the contract of sale. However, based on my personal experience with *contract* law, if someone can get you to *agree* to give up a right in writing, you may actually have stripped yourself of a legal protection.
“Not out of thin air per se, but it seems to me much more reliant on precedent than the Constitution.”
There was no precedent involved in the finding of a right to privacy in the Constitution IIRC.
“Yes..but I don’t think that means we can thereby make up whatever rights we want to and claim they are covered by the Constitution. In my view, that passage signals that more enumerated rights may and should be added to the Constitution as the Congress (not the SCOTUS) decides.”
I disagree. I think that Congress has to demonstrate that any exertion of power over a previously unasserted individual right is necessary and proper for good governance, and that such exertion is only as narrowly exercised as is necessary for the public good. IOW, I think the burden’s on *Congress,* not on the people.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:06 pm
Orange12
“Right Paul! So how can anyone say the syimulus worked. ”
What did your original statement that the stimulus was borrowed money have to do with whether or not it worked?
Jay’s link takes you right to some of the nation’s top economists. If you click on their names it’ll take you to page wherein you can write them and ask them.
But they’ll probably tell you to enroll in Econ 101.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
6:08 pm
Towncrier: The real question becomes whether you take whatever doubt remains and go towards a faith with leaders that have all the answers, or if you err on the side of caution. Whether you accept a doctrine of CONTROL and PUNISHMENT, or one of LIBERTY instead.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:10 pm
md
I just used your “There are plenty of respected people in the field that now believe conception is the “beginning” of human life. Stage one if you prefer.” as a springboard for those who support no contraceptives for women or who make the argument abortion is interfering with God’s will in seeing a life come to birth.
It gets pretty dicey to be consistent when one starts basing medical treatments and personal choice on what one sees as a religious argument or one’s opinion.
Jay
February 21st, 2012
6:12 pm
If we only have those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution, then the whole concept of natural rights and God-given rights becomes moot. We have only those rights that are granted us by government and by other men.
Is that correct, Crier?
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:14 pm
Tom
“Paul@5:25 – I do not support or like Sen McCain views. ”
That’s irrelevant.
I was taking issue with what I saw as an attack on Joe Hussein Mama because of his political views, made more egregious with your citing some military service to give your attack weight.
So I pointed out a gentleman with infinitely more military accomplishment than you (General McPeak) to point out just because someone served in the military does not make them an automatic conservative.
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
6:18 pm
Paul @ 6:06
If it wasn’t worth it, it didn’t work!
Common Sense 101
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:19 pm
Orange12
Welcome to the blog.
You’ll come across some apt sayings here.
Like “when you’re in a hole, stop digging.”
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
6:20 pm
Love them “Husseins”!!! Really good for the USA, that said, think I’ll go throw up now!!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
6:20 pm
Paul — “So I pointed out a gentleman with infinitely more military accomplishment than you (General McPeak) to point out just because someone served in the military does not make them an automatic conservative.”
I can assure Tom that there are *plenty* of men and women who wear or have worn our country’s uniform who aren’t conservatives. There are also more than a few atheists, too.
Tom(Independent)
February 21st, 2012
6:23 pm
Paul and Joe Hussein – Twins separated at birth, last word of day from a real Independent!!! We will decide the election, take my word for it. 35% Democrats, 25% GOP, and 40% Independents!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Orange12
February 21st, 2012
6:25 pm
Paul @ 6:19
I made my point.
Soothsayer
February 21st, 2012
6:28 pm
Man tried to run over wife, police say (AJC)
A man is accused of trying to run over his wife during an argument.
[He] tried to run over his wife in the driveway of the couple’s home and push her head through a window.
Gosh, I hope he didn’t use a beer truck!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
Tom — “We will decide the election, take my word for it.”
Given your behavior in here this afternoon, I don’t think I’d ‘take your word for it’ if you claimed the sun was going to come up tomorrow.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:30 pm
Orange12
Let me know if you want a flashlight -
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:32 pm
Sooth
Not to worry. I don’t think even a Ford F-450 could budge her!
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
6:33 pm
“Also, Towncrier, just because something isn’t in the constitution does NOT mean that it’s not a right. That’s in the 9th Amendment.”
That single sentence does not, in my and many people’s view, say enough of anything to give the SCOTUS authority to add any rights it wants. The best way to figure out what the true intention of what the framers of the Constitution intended (and not what we may want it to mean) is to look at the their writings. The Bill of Rights was, I as understand it, meant to constrain governmental powers. And it was feared that such a list of rights would limit the extent of “retained by the people”. Well, the rights of the people with respect to abortion has changed markedly since the foundation of our country. Initially, abortion in the US seems to have been allowed before the fetus moved in the womb. Then there was a long movement to outlaw it. In some European countries, abortion was illegal except for medical necessities. In others words, we can’t really say what the rights of the people were in this regard because they were defined by law (governmental power). So the SCOTUS invents a new enumerated right to cover that. But it doesn’t have the authority to do this. That’s the problem. Let’s do it legislatively, please.
Soothsayer
February 21st, 2012
6:33 pm
Democratic women seek a state ban on vasectomies for men (AJC)
“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” said Rep. Yasmin Neal, author of the bill. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”
House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams added, “The Republican attack on women’s reproductive rights is unconscionable. What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954’s author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of this General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.”
Turnabout is fair play!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
6:36 pm
Towncrier — “The best way to figure out what the true intention of what the framers of the Constitution intended (and not what we may want it to mean) is to look at the their writings.”
Are you suggesting that without some sort of imprimatur in writing from one or more Founders, no right can be said to exist? Come now; you must be joking.
That said, I wish I could participate longer in this discussion this evening, but my wife and a long list of errands are calling me. Everyone be well and drive safely; I’m out.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
6:37 pm
“If we only have those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution, then the whole concept of natural rights and God-given rights becomes moot. We have only those rights that are granted us by government and by other men.
Is that correct, Crier?
The 9th Amendment was drafted to ensure that the enumeration of some rights did not signal that these were the only rights people had. I agree with that. But it is a stretch to turn this amendment into a license to make up whatever rights you want to. The enumerated were meant to constrain the imposition of governmental power. Rights have been added over time. There is no reason a right to privacy could not also be added. My argument is that the SCOTUS is not the branch to do that. Are you going to argue otherwise?
Erwin's cat
February 21st, 2012
6:44 pm
“…But none of it is scientific proof or even so much as a scientific theory. I’ll tend to lean towards people who actually make testable hypotheses and peer reviewed studies, rather than opinion. Thanks though.
”
hey…that’s what I said about man-made GCC
Soothsayer
February 21st, 2012
6:46 pm
Can you believe Romney actually strapped a dripping wet dog on top of an automobile on the interstate? I can’t!
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
February 21st, 2012
6:48 pm
Jay, you kind of remind me of the Kevin Bacon character in “Animal House” shouting “All is well! All is well!” near the end of the movie. I can get a battalion of PhDs to swear up and down that the moon is made of green cheese if I pay them enough money, and they believe enough in the “cause” – for example, global warming. Keynes was disproved a long time ago.
Keep pushing that stone up the hill, Jay.
kayaker 71
February 21st, 2012
6:48 pm
Fascinating narrative posted about the upcoming PBS series regarding Slick Willy. All of the narrative is posted on the PBS website and the documentary is broken down in to the campaign years pre 1992 up to his impeachment years following Lewinsky. His handlers, his wife, his campaign staff including Dick Morris….. most interesting is the conversation with a woman staffer making the decisions regarding his even running with the history of all of the infidelities that he had. Highway patrolmen, when he was governor of Arkansas, stated that he sometimes had as many as 25 women a day wanted to see him in his office for one reason or another, mostly another. It is amazing that PBS, with it’s liberal bent, would even go here. But the champion of the Democratic Party, that stalwart liberal that we can all admire, that ex-president that demands and gets up to and over 80K/speech on the circuit….. and then liberals demean and vilify Newt for being married three times. What a bunch of friggin’ hypocrites.
F. Sinkwich
February 21st, 2012
6:50 pm
Hey, Jay, O’bozo called the Constitution a “negative document.”
That statement pretty much encapsulates lib ilk orthodoxy — the Constitution should enumerate what government MUST provide the populace, not limit government’s scope.
O’bozo has only one tool — the government hammer. Every problem in lib ilk world is a nail.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:52 pm
Soothsayer
I sure hope that story dies. But it likely won’t. There’s all sorts of indignation out there from people who don’t remember life with only station wagons. Besides which, drive around here. You’ll see dogs with their heads hanging out windows and in the back of pickup trucks.
Fainting couches are gonna get another workout!
Jay
February 21st, 2012
6:52 pm
Yes, I am certainly going to argue with that, Crier.
The Constitution had already provided a means by which it could be amended to “add rights,” as you put it. So if the Ninth Amendment merely meant that we could “add rights” later through Congress, as you claim, it was a totally redundant and unnecessary exercise.
That’s not how the Founders operated. The Ninth Amendment was important to them, and it says what it means: We have inherent rights as human beings beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made it very clear. The Ninth was necessary because of fear that “by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, (the Bill of Rights) would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.”
It’s a little flowery for modern ears, but Madison’s meaning is clear.
Towncrier
February 21st, 2012
6:53 pm
“Are you suggesting that without some sort of imprimatur in writing from one or more Founders, no right can be said to exist? Come now; you must be joking.”
No. I am saying the 9th Amendment itself (as all of the amendments) can be best and most properly interpreted with respect to the Founders writings (and not like some current justices think, in relation to European constitutions). The historical context is the power of government versus the rights of people. They knew that enumerated certain rights would ensure them against the encroachment of governmental power. The 9th Amendment does not say enough to indicate the means by which the unenumerated rights of people are to be preserved. My contention is that the SCOTUS has presumed to know as much and taken to itself the authority to enumerate new rights, where I believe (as originally) that is the role of the Congress alone. The fact is, the SCOTUS is not an elected body and, if allowed to its designs, is an oligarchy. That is NOT democracy. If the majority of Americans want a right to abortion (or any other right), then let them get Congress to add it as a right to ensure government cannot abridge it.
Soothsayer
February 21st, 2012
6:54 pm
Paul, thanks for looking!
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:55 pm
Vast Right Wing
So you think the professors from MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc listed here
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi
are dishonest and were bought and that explains everything?
O-kaaaayyyyyyyy………
Paul
February 21st, 2012
6:56 pm
Soothsayer
I’d never pass on one of your links -
F. Sinkwich
February 21st, 2012
7:02 pm
Filled up the family truckster today for more than a Benjamin.
At least O’bozo is happy about that.
Eco-weenies too!