Federal Judge - "Not so fast, my friend."

Semantics. How did the Bush deficits contribute to the collapse, but the bigger Obama deficits contribute to the recovery?

So why would deficits cause an economic collapse like we saw in 2008?

You haven't yet, but I'm waiting.

 

Here is what I never understood, if government deficit spending spread around the country promotes the economy then why didn’t the Iraq/Afghanistan wars pump up the economy. They were financed through deficits; the money was spread around the country in material and labor; and yet during this period of huge government spending the economy went in the tank.
I’m not a believer in government ‘priming the pump’ deficit spending but the people who are have never given me a satisfactory answer to that question.

 

those charts are useless because the lower taxes would spur the economy and raise government revenues, even at a lower tax rate.

 

This thread kinda died, but to get back to the original post this will most likely end up as Constitutional if it ever makes it to the Supreme Court.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the "Commerce Clause" and it grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This traditionally has been a legal means to limit state's power. It has been invoked to halt price fixing in the meat industry (Gibbons v. Ogden), transporting goods between states (Swift and Company v. United States) and others. Precidence was set on the ruling for (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. in that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” could have an effect on such commerce. The Civil Rights Act was also passed under powers granted by the Commerce Clause.

So, the decision comes down to whether or not the courts feels that healthcare and health insurance is an interstate market and if you interpret healthcare and health insurance as having "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" then it's going to hold up in the courts.

I think the Republicans know this (partly because this is THEIR plan) so they're going to attack it from a different angle. I think that's why after hearing from a few states with GOP Atty Generals/Governors immediately after it was passed, they have been pretty silent as far as pursuing this through the courts. It's not going to be repealed simply because the numbers are not there. Their best bet it to chip away at funding for the bill and perhaps pass legislation that take some of it's teeth. I don't see it happening, though. The GOP receives just as much money if not more from the health insurance lobby than the Democrats. They have no real incentive to change it or remove it.

 

Because Bush is an idiot. Don't you remember telling us that, like a million times?

 

and the lights finally come on.

 

Yet Obama is a competent? Hardly. I'd take W in a heartbeat over this clown.