“Roe” Stands for Justice
Tags: Supreme Court.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
A brave woman who is making the rest of us look like cowards:
The woman at the center of the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion rights ruling was arrested today at the confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor among a wave of anti-abortion protesters who lined the sidewalks outside the Senate office buildings and several of whom made it into the hearing room and disrupted in an attempt to disrupt the proceedings.
Norma McCorvey, 61, of Texas, better known as “Jane Roe” in the famous Roe v. Wade case from January 1973, was arrested after she and another protester started yelling during the opening statement of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), according to Capitol Police. McCorvey, whose pursuit of the right to access to abortion in the early 1970s led to the ruling that has been a pivotal part of every Supreme Court nomination process since, eventually become a notable opponent of the procedure.
As we’ve said, we can’t stop Sotomayor – only a complete screw up on her own part (unlikely as the Senate Democrats have carefully coached her on what to say, and will put all sorts of roadblocks up against any GOP attempt to get at the truth about her) will derail this nomination…but the bottom line of Sotomayor and all liberal judges is an insane and inhuman defense of Roe…but the wheel is turning, and the time of these liberals is passing.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
72 Responses to ““Roe” Stands for Justice”
Caucus of Corruption
Prove it – cappy
Look specifically at England and France who are both currently cutting income taxes, and business taxes to increase economic activity and thus more federal receipts.
Like I said moron, you are woefully unarmed. You’re a f&^king teacher for Christ’s sake. Those who can’t do, teach.
ranafuerte says: “You know how I know…”
July 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
stop fooling yourself…you dont know squat
you can talk till you are blue in the face cluster…but you can never beat common sesnse into casper…not gonna happen…
cluster,
Can’t prove it? Oh well. Perhaps you need to go back to school.
So two fairly large countries that contradict your assertion are not proof for you? No wonder we have stupid kids in Wyoming.
And I am still waiting for you to debunk my points. You said they were easy to debunk, what happened?
cluster-
You forget that Freddie and Fannie lagged behind the private sector in the case of MBSs from subprime loans, buying the more risky MBSs so they could compete with private financial institutions. However, that wouldn’t have been an issue if the mortgage market was properly regulated (even though I am no fan of securitized mortgages).
In a nutshell, bad mortgages were bundled with good mortgages, given faulty ratings, sold to investors, then used as collateral and insanely leveraged to make way too many investments for the money. The housing bubble burst, all of that collateral became worthless, and the massive Wall St Sell-off began. Then, you had countless institutions that had overextended themselves in the hugely unregulated credit default swap market and were, therefore, responsible for paying for investors’ losses. Then the economy really went to hell…
The stock market wasn’t the problem; the under regulated financial markets were.
I do think that predatory and sub prime lending massively contributed to the problem.
Anyways, back to the whole… Freddie thing. I honestly think that Fannie and Freddie weren’t as much of the problem as they were made out to be. The abuses in the system were… well… systemic and facilitated by overly-lax regulations and regulatory agencies. Fannie and Freddie are like the the guy who speeds up on the highway and goes with the flow of traffic–then a massive multi-car pileup happens and he is the one guy to get a ticket for following too closely.
…buying the more risky MBSs so they could compete with private financial institutions.
Fannie and Freddie don’t compete with anybody. In fact the government competing with any private institution would be like Mike Tyson fighting Capser. The confidence diplayed in the GSE’s were the impetus used by the private sector to also take a risk on the margins of the large amount of mainly worthless MBS’s.
Other than that, you’re getting a lot closer to being right.
cluster-
The increase in Federal Revenues in the early 2000s was mainly due to increases in FICA revenues, as opposed to increases in income tax revenues. As Greg Mankiw pointed out, tax revenues were originally projected (in 2001) to be much higher then they would up being with the Bush tax cuts.
Furthermore, I believe that your analogy with Britain and France is faulty. Most economists believe that we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, with tax cuts resulting in smaller tax revenues. Most European democracies are on the right side of the Laffer Curve, with cuts in tax rates increasing tax revenue.
and js02-
Go sit in the corner until you have something grown-up to say, jackass.
in a pigs eye rana…
federal law ran fannie and freddie…and barney and his sodomite lover took plenty of cash from both…to insure that they remained without adequate supervisions…dont spin the lies and play like they are true…bad mortages were mandated and lawyers sued to insure mortgage companies complied…and your piers…the stooges in congress…protected them with guarantee’s on those loans and bought them through freddie and fanny…only a moron would omit facts like that to remove the blame from the government…the only lag that freddie and fanny had was the overnight funding to the banks that were forced into making loans they could not afford…
ranafuerte says: “You know how I know…”
July 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
stop fooling yourself…you dont know squat
cluster-
Fanny and Freddie competed with other financial institutions the same way that the USPS competes with FEDEX, UPS, and DHL, all of which are doing quite well.
Fannie and Freddie stayed out of the sub-prime market until around 2004, while the private institutions had been thriving on that market since around 2000.
Not all MBSs were bad, but they soon became a perverse investment.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1478.html
This article clearly illustrates that Reagan’s policies were responsible for the spike in ‘86, Bush I’s tax increases caused the lull in 1990, Gingrich’s contract with America in ‘94 cause another surge, and Bush II’s tax cuts got us out of the impact of 9/11
Good night.
js02-
The more you say, the more you betray yourself as an ignoramus.
The CRA (I assume that that’s what you’re crowing about) was designed to keep banks from categorically rejecting loan applications from “bad neighborhoods,” regardless of the applicants’ credit–to ensure that banks were providing credit to all of the regions from which they received deposits. In fact, through repeated survey from the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve found that most CRA loans were safe and profitable, while most of the dangerous sub prime loans were made by non-regulated, independent mortgage houses (the so-called “shadow banking system”).
I can understand your mistake, but you really need to look below the surface of these issues…
oh yeah
You suck. You lose. Go sit in the corner.
cluster-
I think the article is making the “correlation implies causation” mistake. All of the troughs in the graph coincide with recessions, while the rises coincide with economic expansions. (the graph also shows the % of total receipts represented by corporate taxes, not net corporate tax receipts). One could also argue that the expansion of the ’80s, which was abruptly ended by the S&L crisis in 1987, was as much due to Reagan’s deficit spending (which his tax cuts contributed to) as it was a return to normalcy after the early ’80s recession. In fact, after Clinton raised taxes, revenues skyrocketed and helped us achieve a balanced budget.
(If you look at the chart, then you see that net corporate tax receipts did not decrease after the rate was increased in 1993 until the tech bubble burst in 2000)
Clinton’s fiscal policy was the closest that our government came to a sensible fiscal policy, where the administration actually fights to decrease spending and balance the budget during times of economic expansion.
cluster says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
It’s not a number of deaths game cluster it’s what my friends in the intelligence industry call “situational integrity.” That two guines word means the McVeighs of the world can be terrorsists in your m,idst and blend in much easier than Al Qaeda can. Anti-Abortion Rights groups like Defenders of the Defenders of Life can go and come without pause in airports they are on no terror watch lists if they are new acolytes to the violence.
Al Qaeda can make specatacular attacks on the United States and cause billions in damage but they cannot maintain a level of violence that threatens the US economy. Only a group of terrorists from inside the United States that can blend in to the society and rise up to attack can do that. “The best terrorist is the man or woman who smiles at you every day in the coffee shop in your building and never talks about politics or religion. That terrorist looks like you and is trusted by you and has a crucifix hanging on a thin chain just barely visible around their neck. They are the last person you would ever suspect would seek to bring down the American government, however, there are tens of thousands of this person living and working legally within your borders as citizens that are willing to do this murderous work in the name of defending the unborn.”–Nuulo Isdrix, in a declassified briefing to intelligence organizations on Terra.
jeremy says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Why not just say “I am pro White breeding to keep a racial majority and anti gay marriage.” Neither are good laws especially economically.
cluster says:
July 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Not true at all. Most of the money lost in the market from August of 2007 when the recession began to when the market bottomed in November was felt by the Middle and Upper Middle Class in the form of their Mutual Funds and Money Market Accounts losing nearly 60% of their value year over year.
cluster says:
July 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The fact that the tax haul outpaced the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates means that the estimates were low and that the economy was doing well when those cuts were made. You conflate cuts for the wealthy in good times with cuts for quotidian consumers [the Middle Class, workers and the Poor] in lean times. All tax cuts for the top 1% do is make the top 1% wealthier. The economy was better when the top tax rate was 4% higher under Clinton than it is after two successive Bush tax cuts.
Clinton’s fiscal policy was the closest that our government came to a sensible fiscal policy, where the administration actually fights to decrease spending and balance the budget during times of economic expansion. – rana
And that was imposed upon him by the Gingrich led Congress and the Contract with America in 1994
All tax cuts for the top 1% do is make the top 1% wealthier. – leadecon
Spoken like a true classist, marxist, loser. Sorry you’re so inferior.
cluster says:
July 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Economics 101
cluster-
I have to disagree with your recollection of history because… well… it’s incorrect.
PAYGO was actually passed under Bush (41) (my bad) as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of of 1990, which was written by the Democratic Congress to help bring the deficit under control (Reagan didn’t think that deficits were a problem, and deficit spending through expansions was a hallmark of Reaganomics). It is the provision most credited for bringing the budget into balance.
Clinton’s big step towards a balanced budget was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which, among other things, lowered taxes on low and middle income earners, raised taxes on wealthy Americans, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, and placed significant restrictions on future spending. This had the effect of drastically raising tax revenues. This bill passed Congress without a single Republican vote.
The Republicans then dismantled PAYGO so they could pass tax cuts without reducing spending (they wound up increasing discretionary spending), leading to large deficits.
So much for Fiscal Responsibility…