Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bryan

Gerald Walpin and the New York Times

Recommended Posts

That's right-wing spin. Here are the final two paragraph's of the dissent in Ricci criticizing the Court's 5 judge majority:

It is indeed regrettable that the City’s noncertification decision would have required all candidates to go through another selection process. But it would have been more regrettable to rely on flawed exams to shut out candidateswho may well have the command presence and other qualities needed to excel as fire officers. Yet that is the choice the Court makes today. It is a choice that breaks the promise of Griggs that groups long denied equal oppor-tunity would not be held back by tests “fair in form, butdiscriminatory in operation.” 401 U. S., at 431.

This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “asignificant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.” See ante, at 27–28.

So where's the supposed spin? Do you claim that this dissent matches the decision reached by the panel that included Sotomayor? You argument seems about as mixed up as it could be. The above is the dissent from the SCOTUS majority opinion, something that Sotomayor has had no opportunity to do. Sotomayor's panel said the lower court got it right. The SCOTUS dissent would have remanded the decision back down to the lower court. There's no reason to do that if the lower court got it right. Obviously. The sticking point was the panel's reliance on the city's intent (following the lower court). The dissent from the SCOTUS does not follow that line of reasoning.

Next time explain why it's supposedly spin instead of just claiming it.

Unless you're chicken. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Walpin says he cleared the arrangement with the board's chairman, vice chairman and a third board member. Our witness was not present at that meeting but says he was present at more than one subsequent meeting of the full board during which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised from the board

Not true. This was done with a "wink and a nod". It was unauthorized. From e-mail documents recently turned over to Congress on the matter, it's clear Mr. Walpin was aware of the concerns:

-----Original Message-----

From: Tanenblatt, Eric [mailto:etanenblatt@mckennalong.com]

Sent: FridaYI January 23, 2009 8:57 AM

To: Gerald Walpin

Cc: Steve Goldsmith; Alan D. Solomont

Subject: Telecommuting arrangement

Jerry:

In advance of our upcoming MAG committee meeting, I did want to provide you with feedback from the board regarding your proposed telecommuting arrangement.

First, we recognize and appreciate the sacrifices you and your family have made the past two years. Your willingness to commute each week from New York City to Washington, D.C. speaks to your deep and personal

commitment to your responsibilities as Inspector General.

Second, we have concerns about the viability of a long-term telecommuting arrangement for a position as important as the Inspector General. It is our view that, given the need for effective leadership, and the high-profile and critical nature of the Inspector General position, a full-time telecommute arrangement is not acceptable. You have been a hands-on Inspector General, one who is willing to take the time to work through issues principally through face to face

meetings, where candid give and take has yielded in many instances better decisions for the agency. While we would expect that you would make every effort to be in Washington for critical meetings, you would lose the in-person communications that currently take place on a' daily basis. Moreover/ given the unexpected nature of IG-related matters,

telecommuting would make it difficult for you to participate optimally and in person in issues and meetings that come up without notice. In a year of transition, this is a critical time for the Corporation -- the; in-person presence of the Inspector General will be important to ensuring the best possible oversight of our agency.

Finally, in all candor, an Inspector GeneralIs recommendations are often made in contentious matters of great sensitivity and importance. It is our expectation that your telecommuting arrangement would, fairly or unfairly, detract from the force and persuasiveness of your recommendations. Thus, we are concerned that a long-term telecommuting arrangement would likely have the effect of weakening your effectivenessas Inspector General.

What portion or portions of this make something in what I wrote "Not true" IYO? And do you still regard telecommuting arrangements as "illegal" for some unknown reason?

Duh. "Klan." You may be interested to learn that it is also the third K after Ku and Klux.

That's offensive. To use a Klan reference as a joke in a political context is beyond the pale. It's indefensible. How can a person that partisan then be objective and nonpartisan in his deliberations, as he is required to be?

This bears repeating:

You're funny. You've got nothing, so you just make noise.

So you say, but you haven't really addressed the reporting from the Times except with your own petty response to which I had replied.

All I did was point out who our President and members of Congress are. When did stating facts become petty? As to the NY Times, I did address it. It doesn't merit any coverage beyond a blurb on page A23 with the national summaries.

Pay more attention to the grammar. I was referring to a previous response, before you descended to the equivalent of "Nyah-nyah! We won! We won! We won!"

Right ... Sotomayor. Isn't she the nominee whose recent decision in the Ricci case was flogged when it reached the Supreme Court? The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning. Whereas she accepted in full the reasoning of the lower court, the dissent would have remanded the case so that critical issues might have been addressed. You must be so proud!

Indeed I am proud of her nomination. She's a temperate and careful judge who applied existing Supreme Court (Griggs) and Circuit law to uphold the district court's decision. A split Supreme Court narrowed Griggs on statistical disparity impact analyses. As a Circuit Court judge, her obligation is to apply the law, not make it, as the Supreme Court did.

That doesn't exactly explain the criticism she endured from her mentor on that selfsame court as a result of that decision, does it?

Just for fun, try to predict the budget deficit and the unemployment rate for the end of Obama's first term.

First Obama Term: $300 billion annual deficit and 7% unemployment

Second Obama Term: Surplus (like Clinton) and 5% unemployment

Both of your predictions are remarkably optimistic. The first radically undercuts Obama's own projections, which would put the deficit at about $600 billion for 2012 (the CBO thinks that's a low figure). Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful.

Did you hear that a second "stimulus" bill is under consideration? It's because the first one was such a rousing success. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/dem...f=ib_topstories

My turn. Just for fun, try to predict how many Supreme Court vacancies Obama will fill during his terms of office and who they will be. I think the vacancies will be Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia and Kennedy in that order. It will be the most Justices appointed by a President since Franklin Roosevelt and will shift the Court back to the center for the next 25 years.

There's no fun in that. :)

Except that Obama's ambitious first term has a good chance of precluding a second one. He can't command the media as Roosevelt did. Not that the mainstream media do much to resist (Want to promote your health care reform on our network? Please?). Even Helen Thomas is offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
You should start by reading the the Second Circuit three-judge panel's one paragraph opinion which she joined. Nowhere in the decision do the judges suport any view in favor or against preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity. Instead, the the three judges struggled with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act and upheld the lower court's decision. She's a very careful and deliberate judge, so you're way off the mark. Here is the entire decision that you complain about:

"We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected."

I'll reduce this to one sentence so you can understand it better; She chose quotas over discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans
I'll reduce this to one sentence so you can understand it better; She chose quotas over discrimination.

Quotas are unconstitutional. That's the problem with the right wing, they distort and lie in order to score political points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans
So where's the supposed spin? Do you claim that this dissent matches the decision reached by the panel that included Sotomayor? You argument seems about as mixed up as it could be. The above is the dissent from the SCOTUS majority opinion, something that Sotomayor has had no opportunity to do. Sotomayor's panel said the lower court got it right. The SCOTUS dissent would have remanded the decision back down to the lower court. There's no reason to do that if the lower court got it right. Obviously. The sticking point was the panel's reliance on the city's intent (following the lower court). The dissent from the SCOTUS does not follow that line of reasoning.

Next time explain why it's supposedly spin instead of just claiming it.

Unless you're chicken. :)

You've oversimplified and misunderstood the basic principles involved in the case. First, re-read your own post. You said, "The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning." I responded by quoting you the concluding paragraphs of Ginsburg's dissent in which she backed the City's actions to not certify the list. The Second Circuit panel's reasoning on this point was not rejected by the dissent. You will not find that anywhere in the dissent.

Here's what you've mixed up. There are two statutory issues (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) raised in Ricci (the constitutional issues were never reached by either the majority or the dissent).

The first is whether throwing out the results of a civil service exam for lack of candidate racial diversity constitutes intentional racial discrimination against those on the thrown out list (caucasions) in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The second is whether a governmental entity that accepts and uses an employment selection process that results in a disparate impact based on race (for example, to the exclusion of African Americans) is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

As you can see, the two conflict can conflict and, in fact, conflicted in Ricci. Until the Ricci decision, the Supreme Court's guidance under Griggs emphasized the second concern as a priority (addressing and remedying disparate impact which excludes a race). That's what the Second Circuit and district court did. (Re-read the entire one-paragraph Second Circuit decision posted above, in which the panel stresses the second point of disparate impact.)

Now, re-read the concluding paragraphs from Ginsburg's dissent. She rejects the notion that the City's action was a violation of the first point -- in other words, that the noncertification of the list was NOT intentional discrimination against those on the thrown out list. ("But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII.") Ginsburg's opinion limits the statutory/Title VII analysis to the second point above, just like the district court and the Second Circuit did. The only divergence was that she wanted more of a factual record on the statistical disparity.

Since this is solely a question of statutory interpretation, it's really a question of what Congress meant. I would expect the Ginsburg/Sotomayor will eventually carry the day, either through a new act of Congress, or with a change in make up of the Court (it was a 5 to 4 decision).

Not want to have fun with Supreme Court nominations? Looks to me that you accused me of being a chicken, when you're the one not willing to engage and deal with the reality of our President, Barack H. Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numbers Predictor
Both of your predictions are remarkably optimistic. The first radically undercuts Obama's own projections, which would put the deficit at about $600 billion for 2012 (the CBO thinks that's a low figure). Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful.

Hmmm. Let's see. Which President increased the income tax, reduced record budget deficits, reduced unemployment rates to below 7 percent and led the longest post-WWII economic recovery in America? oooh, I know, it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat! Bryan, in your world, were those 7 years "fanciful" economic times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've oversimplified and misunderstood the basic principles involved in the case. First, re-read your own post. You said, "The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning." I responded by quoting you the concluding paragraphs of Ginsburg's dissent in which she backed the City's actions to not certify the list.

You can't use partial agreement to contradict my statement.

The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision).

The Second Circuit panel's reasoning on this point was not rejected by the dissent. You will not find that anywhere in the dissent.

You do know what "implicit" means, right?

When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use.

Here's what you've mixed up. There are two statutory issues (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) raised in Ricci (the constitutional issues were never reached by either the majority or the dissent).

The first is whether throwing out the results of a civil service exam for lack of candidate racial diversity constitutes intentional racial discrimination against those on the thrown out list (caucasions) in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The second is whether a governmental entity that accepts and uses an employment selection process that results in a disparate impact based on race (for example, to the exclusion of African Americans) is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination?

As you can see, the two conflict can conflict and, in fact, conflicted in Ricci. Until the Ricci decision, the Supreme Court's guidance under Griggs emphasized the second concern as a priority (addressing and remedying disparate impact which excludes a race). That's what the Second Circuit and district court did. (Re-read the entire one-paragraph Second Circuit decision posted above, in which the panel stresses the second point of disparate impact.)

Now, re-read the concluding paragraphs from Ginsburg's dissent. She rejects the notion that the City's action was a violation of the first point -- in other words, that the noncertification of the list was NOT intentional discrimination against those on the thrown out list. ("But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII.") Ginsburg's opinion limits the statutory/Title VII analysis to the second point above, just like the district court and the Second Circuit did. The only divergence was that she wanted more of a factual record on the statistical disparity.

Whereas the panel was satisfied with the city's intent to meet its obligation under Title VII (and avoid an associated lawsuit). It's in the panel's decision, which you would have read. Now look for it in Ginsburg's dissent.

Since this is solely a question of statutory interpretation, it's really a question of what Congress meant. I would expect the Ginsburg/Sotomayor will eventually carry the day, either through a new act of Congress, or with a change in make up of the Court (it was a 5 to 4 decision).

People tend to agree with the SCOTUS majority on Ricci. But their representatives will thumb their collective noses at them and undermine the decision?

Not want to have fun with Supreme Court nominations? Looks to me that you accused me of being a chicken, when you're the one not willing to engage and deal with the reality of our President, Barack H. Obama.

He'll have one or two, I think, since he'll last only one term as a result of his overreaching agenda. That might change if he gets health care reform passes, since making people dependent on the government is a great way to control voting blocs. Just look at the way the Dems wrangled seniors to protect the Medicare status quo by calling measures that slowed the growth of Medicare spending "cuts."

Some people won't take a joke as a joke even with the smiley attached. Oh, well. I suppose I should not have made light of my own displeasure at Obama having the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Mea culpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm. Let's see. Which President increased the income tax, reduced record budget deficits, reduced unemployment rates to below 7 percent and led the longest post-WWII economic recovery in America? oooh, I know, it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat! Bryan, in your world, were those 7 years "fanciful" economic times?

There are problems with Clinton's economic record (tampering with the subprime market via bank intimidation, tech bubble), but I'm happy to give Clinton some credit for a pretty good economy during the 1990s. Clinton's economic policies were fairly conservative. Clinton, for example, lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%.

The big problem here is that once we get past the "Democrat" label, Clinton and Obama have little in common. Clinton made mistakes when he first came into office and the Democrats lost control of Congress early in his administration. The conservative Congress pushed Clinton to fulfill his more moderate tendencies, and much of what Clinton accomplished in office was part of the GOP's "Contract With America." So Clinton ended up governing as a moderate once HillaryCare and his own initial economic plan hit the fan.

Obama, apart from one aspect of foreign policy (Afghanistan) has not governed as a moderate. He has taken a hard left course and pursued a bevy of traditional liberal causes and justified the expense as economic stimulus. You're simply not going to see the deficit shrink under Obama simply because he and President Clinton wore the same political label. Obama doesn't claim that the deficit will shrink while he's in office. And that's one area where he can be believed.

Have a look at the graph, particularly the White House estimates of future deficits.

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2...a-bigger-graph/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quotas are unconstitutional. That's the problem with the right wing, they distort and lie in order to score political points.

Wow. Does that mean that all politicians are right wing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numbers Predictor
There are problems with Clinton's economic record (tampering with the subprime market via bank intimidation, tech bubble), but I'm happy to give Clinton some credit for a pretty good economy during the 1990s. Clinton's economic policies were fairly conservative. Clinton, for example, lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%.

The big problem here is that once we get past the "Democrat" label, Clinton and Obama have little in common. Clinton made mistakes when he first came into office and the Democrats lost control of Congress early in his administration. The conservative Congress pushed Clinton to fulfill his more moderate tendencies, and much of what Clinton accomplished in office was part of the GOP's "Contract With America." So Clinton ended up governing as a moderate once HillaryCare and his own initial economic plan hit the fan.

Obama, apart from one aspect of foreign policy (Afghanistan) has not governed as a moderate. He has taken a hard left course and pursued a bevy of traditional liberal causes and justified the expense as economic stimulus. You're simply not going to see the deficit shrink under Obama simply because he and President Clinton wore the same political label. Obama doesn't claim that the deficit will shrink while he's in office. And that's one area where he can be believed.

Have a look at the graph, particularly the White House estimates of future deficits.

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2...a-bigger-graph/

Bryan,

Doesyour long-winded non-responsive response mean you're abandoning your earlier statement?: Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful. Can you concede the simple fact that there can be economic growth and higher taxes and that the 1990's were not "fanciful"?

Bill Clinton raised the highest income tax bracket to 39.6%, which was in effect from 1993 to the end of his second term, and we had record economic growth and employment and a budget SURPLUS when he left office. The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans
Wow. Does that mean that all politicians are right wing?

No. It means that 2smart, the defender of the right wing, distorted and lied about Sotomayor's record. I thought you were smart enough to know that, Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans

The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision).

Wrong. The dissent is a re-affirmation of Griggs and the Title VII requirement that a hiring selection process not have a disparate impact based on race. The district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent all were in agreement on that point. The only difference between the Second Circuit panel and the dissent was that the Second Circuit in one paragraph reached its conclusion without elaboration.

You do know what "implicit" means, right?

There's an example of right wing arrogance when they can't acknowledge being wrong.

When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use.

The Second Circuit's opinion was a one-paragraph conclusion (as lower courts are allowed to do). In fact, by hewing to the controlling Supreme Court precedent on the issue, Griggs, the Second Circuit issued a very conservative and limited decision.

And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination?

You still don't understand the conflict between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination. That's what Ricci is about, the conflict between those two forms of discrimination.

Whereas the panel was satisfied with the city's intent to meet its obligation under Title VII (and avoid an associated lawsuit). It's in the panel's decision, which you would have read. Now look for it in Ginsburg's dissent.

I have already quoted Ginsburg's language to you twice. She and the Second Circuit and the district court all agreed that the City's refusal to certify the promotion list did NOT constitute intentional discrimination by the City. The majority disagreed. On the other hand, the City's concern about liability due to disparate impact discrimination if it certified the promotion list with not one African American was considered valid by the district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent in accordance with the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. In deciding Ricci, the 5 justice conservative bloc on the Supreme Court significantly narrowed (I guess Kennedy wasn't willing to overrule) the the Griggs decison.

He'll have one or two, I think, since he'll last only one term as a result of his overreaching agenda.

He'll have two by next summer (Souter and Stevens). Scalia will try to hold out but I expect he'll retire during Obama's second term.

That might change if he gets health care reform passes, since making people dependent on the government is a great way to control voting blocs. Just look at the way the Dems wrangled seniors to protect the Medicare status quo by calling measures that slowed the growth of Medicare spending "cuts."

Really? So does that mean you were against George Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit that expanded the Medicare program dramatically?

Some people won't take a joke as a joke even with the smiley attached. Oh, well. I suppose I should not have made light of my own displeasure at Obama having the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies.

I especially liked your own usage of the words, "Obama's first term". That's a big de-merit for you in the right wing blogosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It means that 2smart, the defender of the right wing, distorted and lied about Sotomayor's record. I thought you were smart enough to know that, Bryan.

I think I know your true identity. You're Humpty Dumpty. Admit it.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision).

Wrong. The dissent is a re-affirmation of Griggs and the Title VII requirement that a hiring selection process not have a disparate impact based on race. The district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent all were in agreement on that point. The only difference between the Second Circuit panel and the dissent was that the Second Circuit in one paragraph reached its conclusion without elaboration.

You do know what "implicit" means, right?

There's an example of right wing arrogance when they can't acknowledge being wrong.

But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"?

Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means.

When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use.

The Second Circuit's opinion was a one-paragraph conclusion (as lower courts are allowed to do). In fact, by hewing to the controlling Supreme Court precedent on the issue, Griggs, the Second Circuit issued a very conservative and limited decision.

And thus you believe you can skip around my point? The opinion, however brief, hailed the lower court's opinion and underscored the importance of the city's intentions. The SCOTUS dissent, as you noted, placed particular importance on evaluating the numbers and differed from Sotomayor's panel in that respect--and that is not a particularly subtle difference.

And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination?

You still don't understand the conflict between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination.

Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time?

That's what Ricci is about, the conflict between those two forms of discrimination.

And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly?

I have already quoted Ginsburg's language to you twice. She and the Second Circuit and the district court all agreed that the City's refusal to certify the promotion list did NOT constitute intentional discrimination by the City. The majority disagreed. On the other hand, the City's concern about liability due to disparate impact discrimination if it certified the promotion list with not one African American was considered valid by the district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent in accordance with the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. In deciding Ricci, the 5 justice conservative bloc on the Supreme Court significantly narrowed (I guess Kennedy wasn't willing to overrule) the the Griggs decison.

AFAICT, you've decided to double down and avoid dealing with my point. You're dodging by subtly changing the issue. Either meet my challenge to you or admit that you have no intention of trying, please.

So does that mean you were against George Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit that expanded the Medicare program dramatically?

Most definitely. It was a terrible move, just like partnering with Kennedy on the massively expensive "No Child Left Behind" bill was a mistake. It's funny how some liberals are all over Bush's big-spending ways when the Democrats had more expensive ideas for virtually everything other than national defense (some Democrats claimed to have more expensive ideas respecting national defense, but got little opportunity to prove it).

Not the your reply has much of anything to do with the sentence you quoted.

I especially liked your own usage of the words, "Obama's first term". That's a big de-merit for you in the right wing blogosphere.

We must read different right wing blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan,

Doesyour long-winded non-responsive response mean you're abandoning your earlier statement?: Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful. Can you concede the simple fact that there can be economic growth and higher taxes and that the 1990's were not "fanciful"?

I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list.

Bill Clinton raised the highest income tax bracket to 39.6%, which was in effect from 1993 to the end of his second term, and we had record economic growth and employment and a budget SURPLUS when he left office.

You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ns-blunder.html

If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion.

The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months.

That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!).

Can we get back to discussing the folly of Obama's policies now? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans

But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"?

Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means.

Bryan, I thought you were better than snarky sarcasm. I'll ignore your pettiness. I will re-state the core premise one more time: the Second Circuit and the Ginsburg dissent were in agreement on the lack of intentional discrimination and both focused on disparate impact discrimination. There is no rejection, implicit or explicit; the dissent went to great lengths in trying to salvage disparate impact discrimination while the Second Circuit panel did it in one sentence of one paragraph.

And thus you believe you can skip around my point? The opinion, however brief, hailed the lower court's opinion and underscored the importance of the city's intentions. The SCOTUS dissent, as you noted, placed particular importance on evaluating the numbers and differed from Sotomayor's panel in that respect--and that is not a particularly subtle difference.

No, I did not skip the point. One more time: It's about two kinds of discrimination -- intentional discrimination, which the majority found in the city's refusal to not certify the list and disparate impact discrimination, which could be found if the city does certify the list with not one African American on it. To do a disparate impact analysis, you have to look at the numbers of who is employed, by gender and race, who took the exam, in order to determine whether the resulting list has a "disparate" impact on a race. The majority wanted nothing to do with the numbers because they (except perhaps for Kennedy) reject disparate impact discrimination altogether.

Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time?

Because you have completely ignored the two distinct legal theories of discrimination that came into conflict in the Ricci case. You conflate the two.

And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly?

Because it's the heart of the Ricci case and you can't criticize the Second Circuit's/Sotomayor's position unless you understand the structure of Title VII with respect to the two forms of discrimination.

AFAICT, you've decided to double down and avoid dealing with my point. You're dodging by subtly changing the issue. Either meet my challenge to you or admit that you have no intention of trying, please.

Actually, Sotomayor's/Second Circuit's decision hewed closely to then controlling Supreme Court precedent, Griggs, and was thus a conservative and careful, albeit brief, decision. It was a brilliant strategic outcome. The right wingers on the Judiciary Committee will be hard-pressed to criticize the Second Circuit decision because ruling otherwise would be "judicial activism," which the right wing professes to loathe. She must have known she would be on the Obama short list for the Supreme Court.

As to her mentor Cabranes, he's the liberal equivalent of a Judge Posner or Judge Koszinski on the right. They're very smart and very professorial and think every decision has to be a drawn out treatise (which explains why Bush never considered Posner or Koszinski for the Court and Clinton rejected Cabranes). There's no meat in the Second Circuit's decision for the extremes to chew on and spit back at Sotomayor.

Most definitely. It was a terrible move, just like partnering with Kennedy on the massively expensive "No Child Left Behind" bill was a mistake. It's funny how some liberals are all over Bush's big-spending ways when the Democrats had more expensive ideas for virtually everything other than national defense (some Democrats claimed to have more expensive ideas respecting national defense, but got little opportunity to prove it).

You're entitled to your opinion; it strikes me that your argument that it would have been worse if it were not the Republicans is like saying the Titanic disaster could have been worse if someone else was at the helm that day.

We must read different right wing blogs.

I don't read any right wing blogs. I just assumed that your use of the words, "Obama's first term," would create havoc in that world. You know, implicit in your words is the notion that Obama will have a second term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"?

Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means.

Bryan, I thought you were better than snarky sarcasm. I'll ignore your pettiness.

That would be fine, if you would at the same time address the lack of evidence that befouls your accusations.

I will re-state the core premise one more time: the Second Circuit and the Ginsburg dissent were in agreement on the lack of intentional discrimination and both focused on disparate impact discrimination.

Easy enough to state, I'm sure. Where is Ginsburg's statement to the effect that no intentional discrimination took place?

Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time?

Because you have completely ignored the two distinct legal theories of discrimination that came into conflict in the Ricci case. You conflate the two.

I amaze even myself with my ability to both ignore and conflate two distinct legal theories of discrimination (at the same time?). Can you explain the appearance of contradiction in your charge? Better yet, can you give a specific example of it via quotation?

And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly?

Because it's the heart of the Ricci case and you can't criticize the Second Circuit's/Sotomayor's position unless you understand the structure of Title VII with respect to the two forms of discrimination.

I don't recall asking you whether it was important to understand the two distinct legal theories of discrimination. I simply asked where I omitted making the distinction where it would be important for me to do so. You haven't addressed that question.

We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret Manual of Professional Prevarication.

When making a false accusation, at all costs avoid getting pinned down to particulars. When asked for specific examples that might support the accusation, just pretend you don't understand the question and repeat the accusation over again. Repeat over again as necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numbers Predictor

I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list.

Obama has been in office 3 and 1/2 months! How can you say there are "many differences" in that short a period? There were many "differences" on what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992 and what he did from 1993 to 2000.

You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy. If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion.

Here are facts and honesty for you:

George Bush lowered the long-term capital gains tax rate to 15%. We now have the greatest deficit in the history of this country and the greatest recession since the Great Depression. So where is the causal connection with the capital gains tax rate (of either 15% or 20% or 28%) and the economy?

Obama wants to return capital gains tax rates for the highest earners to the the levels under the Clinton Administration. If as you said the Clinton capital gains tax rates were a good thing, then your criticism perplexes me.

That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!).

Here's another cold fact for you: Every single job created during the George W. Bush years was lost in the last 12 months. EVERY single job. That is astonishing. In light of that economic disaster, I'm more than willing to let Obama implement his policies and giving him more than three months before saying his policies don't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list.

Obama has been in office 3 and 1/2 months! How can you say there are "many differences" in that short a period?

Uh, because there are many difference? What other reason would I need????

There were many "differences" on what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992 and what he did from 1993 to 2000.

Yes, there were, but maybe not as many as you think. Like Obama, Clinton actually ran a fairly centrist campaign. He advocated Welfare reform as part of his campaign, for example. The form Welfare reform eventually took angered many Democrats, but that never stopped Clinton from taking credit for it--and since he had campaigned on it he was entitled to some of the credit even though it probably wouldn't have happened unless it was also an aim of the GOP-controlled Congress. To to put a point on it, I've already been over the fact that Clinton was steered toward the middle by Congress. The big difference right now between Obama and Clinton is that Obama has had great success enacting his early policy ideas. And Obama's policy ideas are far different from those that resulted in the 1990s economy. They are more different than they are alike. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Obama has tended toward protectionism and even campaigned on a unilateral reworking of NAFTA.

You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy. If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion.

Here are facts and honesty for you:

George Bush lowered the long-term capital gains tax rate to 15%. We now have the greatest deficit in the history of this country and the greatest recession since the Great Depression. So where is the causal connection with the capital gains tax rate (of either 15% or 20% or 28%) and the economy?

It probably lowered tax revenue and helped sustain the economy. But the capital gains tax rate cut is only a small part of the deficit. You know that, but make the argument anyway. And that's your version of honesty?

Obama wants to return capital gains tax rates for the highest earners to the the levels under the Clinton Administration. If as you said the Clinton capital gains tax rates were a good thing, then your criticism perplexes me.

Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive.

That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!).

Here's another cold fact for you: Every single job created during the George W. Bush years was lost in the last 12 months. EVERY single job. That is astonishing. In light of that economic disaster, I'm more than willing to let Obama implement his policies and giving him more than three months before saying his policies don't work.

Verily, you have great faith.

I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numbers Predictor

Uh, because there are many difference? What other reason would I need????

It's 3 and 1/2 months. There's no time yet for "many" differences!

Yes, there were, but maybe not as many as you think. Like Obama, Clinton actually ran a fairly centrist campaign. He advocated Welfare reform as part of his campaign, for example. The form Welfare reform eventually took angered many Democrats, but that never stopped Clinton from taking credit for it--and since he had campaigned on it he was entitled to some of the credit even though it probably wouldn't have happened unless it was also an aim of the GOP-controlled Congress. To to put a point on it, I've already been over the fact that Clinton was steered toward the middle by Congress.

Bill Clinton ran on a "stimulus" package in 1992 and a tax increase on the highest earners. Sound familiar? Congress nixed his stimulus but gave him his tax increase in 1993.

The big difference right now between Obama and Clinton is that Obama has had great success enacting his early policy ideas. And Obama's policy ideas are far different from those that resulted in the 1990s economy. They are more different than they are alike. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Obama has tended toward protectionism and even campaigned on a unilateral reworking of NAFTA.

Clinton got a tax increase on high earners in 1993 and so will Obama. We cannot sustain a trillion dollar a year deficit (and that's without taking into account any of the health care reform spending). As to NAFTA, its dismantling would hurt Mexico and Canada much more than it would hurt us; it simply has not delivered on its promise. As to the campaign, there were candidates on both the Republican and Democratic side who campaigned on reforming or scuttling NAFTA. It's not going to happen because of the strategic relationship with Mexico. Notice that President Barack Obama has been kinder on NAFTA than candidate Obama?

It probably lowered tax revenue and helped sustain the economy. But the capital gains tax rate cut is only a small part of the deficit. You know that, but make the argument anyway. And that's your version of honesty?

It was YOU, not I, who raised the capital gains tax rate. After I commented that Bill Clinton increase the top tax income bracket to 39.6% and the economy grew at a record pace, you pointed out that he also lowered the capital gains tax rate. My point was that the differences in a capital gains tax rate of 15% (Bush II), 20% (Clinton) or 28% (Reagan) has little causal connection to sustained economic growth. I never linked it to the deficit. To the contrary, a lowered rate causes more sales of long-term assets, and can actually increase tax revenue as investors seek to cash out. However, it also increases price appreciation and asset value inflation. There are many reasons for the real estate bubble under George Bush -- but one of them was Bush's changes in capital gains taxation.

Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive.

Whoa. That's flat out wrong. The Obama position throughout the campaign and as President is to return the long term capital gains tax rate to the lowered Clinton 20% rate for the highest earners. See any news source including the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...1724238901.html

Then, Bryan, using your logic, Obama restoring the 20% capital gains rate will cause the economy to boom, right? That's a good thing, right?

I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls.

It was the final year of Bush's term. You can't blame it on Bill Clinton, or 9/11 or the a year and a half of a Democratic Congress who gave Bush the exact stimulus plan he requested (remember the rebate check of a year ago?) and the TARP bailout (after the initial hiccup) and the AIG mop up. I agree there's blame for all on Freddie and Fannie, but Social Security? Please. That wouldn't affect one penny of our current trillion dollar a year deficit. Bottom line: The Bush economic policies was a house of cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans

That would be fine, if you would at the same time address the lack of evidence that befouls your accusations.

I not sure what this means.

Easy enough to state, I'm sure. Where is Ginsburg's statement to the effect that no intentional discrimination took place?

I've quoted it twice already! Here's the final paragraph of the dissent:

This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “asignificant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.”

The part I bolded is her rejection of the majority's conclusion that the city's refusal to certify was race-based discrimination (against those who made the list). The underlined part is Ginsburg's rejection of the majority's conclusion that statistical disparities do not constitute disparate impact discrimination. For Ginsburg, statistical disparities may very well be (disparate impact) discrimination, as the Supreme Court's precedent in Griggs decided. The federal court, the Second Circuit/Sotomayor and Ginsburg would all uphold Griggs.

I amaze even myself with my ability to both ignore and conflate two distinct legal theories of discrimination (at the same time?). Can you explain the appearance of contradiction in your charge? Better yet, can you give a specific example of it via quotation?

Bryan, with each posting, you're making it more and more clear that you really don't get it. You conflated the two theories by saying the Second Circuit was rejected by Ginsburg. You haven't been able to discuss the two forms of legal discrimination that are the core of Ricci. You just want to bang Sotomayor without analyzing the law on discrimination. The Second Circuit/Sotomayor issued a very careful and conservative decision that followed the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. It was masterful.

I don't recall asking you whether it was important to understand the two distinct legal theories of discrimination. I simply asked where I omitted making the distinction where it would be important for me to do so. You haven't addressed that question.

I did. Over and over. Again, because you can't debate Ricci without understanding the distinction.

We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret.

So when you can't argue a point, you resort to name calling and refuse to address my points? LOL! It's the equivalent of a child putting his hands to his ears and repeating, "I'm not listening," after he can't get his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, because there are many difference? What other reason would I need????

It's 3 and 1/2 months. There's no time yet for "many" differences!

Yes there is, because as noted previously, Obama has had great success in getting big legislation passed. And it is entirely fair to judge Obama both as to the legislation he has signed as well as for the things he proposes doing.

Yes, there were, but maybe not as many as you think. Like Obama, Clinton actually ran a fairly centrist campaign. He advocated Welfare reform as part of his campaign, for example. The form Welfare reform eventually took angered many Democrats, but that never stopped Clinton from taking credit for it--and since he had campaigned on it he was entitled to some of the credit even though it probably wouldn't have happened unless it was also an aim of the GOP-controlled Congress. To to put a point on it, I've already been over the fact that Clinton was steered toward the middle by Congress.

Bill Clinton ran on a "stimulus" package in 1992 and a tax increase on the highest earners. Sound familiar? Congress nixed his stimulus but gave him his tax increase in 1993.

Right. And in 1994 the GOP gained power in Congress. The economy had already begun to rebound under George H. W. Bush, so neither Congress under Clinton needed to get that done. But as I also noted, the biggest economic growth occurred late in Clinton's presidency.

The big difference right now between Obama and Clinton is that Obama has had great success enacting his early policy ideas. And Obama's policy ideas are far different from those that resulted in the 1990s economy. They are more different than they are alike. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Obama has tended toward protectionism and even campaigned on a unilateral reworking of NAFTA.

Clinton got a tax increase on high earners in 1993 and so will Obama.

A tax increase by Obama retroactive to 1993 will have a tough time getting through Congress.

Seriously, you're right. He's already got it, in effect, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And then he'll raise quite a few other taxes on high income earners. And that points up another difference between the two. Clinton raised taxes on a growing economy (it wasn't growing fast but it was growing). Obama plans to do it during a recession. It's bad economics, and even Obama has made statements indicating that he understands that. He just isn't willing to act as though he understands it, other than talking about it.

We cannot sustain a trillion dollar a year deficit (and that's without taking into account any of the health care reform spending).

That's correct. So you think taxing it away is the thing to do? Think about what the stimulus package is. It is a deliberate action aimed at boosting today's economy by borrowing from tomorrow's economy. It's a classic Keynesian stimulus. If done right, it provides short-run economic benefits (it does not seem to have been done right, largely because the spending has been slow). But you still have to pay it back. You don't get something for nothing. Obama is guaranteeing the necessity of raising taxes with profligate spending. It's no surprise at all to me, but you may end up being surprised if your family makes under $250,000 and you thought Obama wouldn't raise your taxes.

As to NAFTA, its dismantling would hurt Mexico and Canada much more than it would hurt us; it simply has not delivered on its promise. As to the campaign, there were candidates on both the Republican and Democratic side who campaigned on reforming or scuttling NAFTA. It's not going to happen because of the strategic relationship with Mexico. Notice that President Barack Obama has been kinder on NAFTA than candidate Obama?

That's consistent with the reports that his campaign informed Canadian officials that the talk of redoing NAFTA was simply campaign rhetoric and not to take it seriously. I don't know if I'd be excited about that if I were you. Regardless of NAFTA, however, Obama has exhibited a protectionist streak. He axed a free trade agreement with Columbia and advocated a "buy American" policy in the Stimulus bill. Then when foreign nations complain he exhibits his strength by changing his mind. What a leader.

It probably lowered tax revenue and helped sustain the economy. But the capital gains tax rate cut is only a small part of the deficit. You know that, but make the argument anyway. And that's your version of honesty?

It was YOU, not I, who raised the capital gains tax rate.

Yes, of course. And it was you who used the bogus argument referring to the capital gains tax rate. Are we supposed to forget all about that since I brought up the capital gains tax rate?

After I commented that Bill Clinton increase the top tax income bracket to 39.6% and the economy grew at a record pace, you pointed out that he also lowered the capital gains tax rate.

Right, though I had originally pointed out that Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate before you commented that he increased the tax rate for the highest income bracket.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97679

By just taking that one aspect of Clinton policy and pointing to the robust economy of the 1990s, you give the appearance of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In any case, you're radically oversimplifying things by ignoring Clinton's generally conservative approach to the economy.

My point was that the differences in a capital gains tax rate of 15% (Bush II), 20% (Clinton) or 28% (Reagan) has little causal connection to sustained economic growth. I never linked it to the deficit.

"The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97702

All you numbers predictors look alike to me.

To the contrary, a lowered rate causes more sales of long-term assets, and can actually increase tax revenue as investors seek to cash out. However, it also increases price appreciation and asset value inflation. There are many reasons for the real estate bubble under George Bush -- but one of them was Bush's changes in capital gains taxation.

Actually it was Clinton who applied a special exemption to the capital gains tax rate for the sale of homes. So far as I know, Bush made no change that that exemption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html

Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive.

Whoa. That's flat out wrong. The Obama position throughout the campaign and as President is to return the long term capital gains tax rate to the lowered Clinton 20% rate for the highest earners. See any news source including the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...1724238901.html

Then, Bryan, using your logic, Obama restoring the 20% capital gains rate will cause the economy to boom, right? That's a good thing, right?

Don't pretend to be using my logic when you oversimplify things. That has been your tendency, not mine. You're partially correct about Obama's capital gains rate increase. He has been reluctant to name a number, but offered hints that it could be up to 28 percent.

When asked about the capital gains rate back in March, Obama told CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo that he “certainly would not go above . . . 28 percent,” adding, “and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-clarifies.html

And it stands to reason that Obama would like a higher rate under better economic conditions. Going up five percent during a recession will help extend the recession. I note that the Senate is prepared to raise the tax on capital gains by 1.45 percent (to 16.45, I believe) to help pay for the Medicare shortfall.

It remains to be seen where the capital gains rate will be fixed. Most likely it will go high enough to discourage economic growth.

I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls.

It was the final year of Bush's term. You can't blame it on Bill Clinton, or 9/11 or the a year and a half of a Democratic Congress who gave Bush the exact stimulus plan he requested (remember the rebate check of a year ago?) and the TARP bailout (after the initial hiccup) and the AIG mop up. I agree there's blame for all on Freddie and Fannie, but Social Security? Please.

My point there is that the Democrats were not at all serious about fiscal responsibility. Their focus was on acquiring political power. I thought that was clear in the context.

That wouldn't affect one penny of our current trillion dollar a year deficit. Bottom line: The Bush economic policies was a house of cards.

See? Oversimplifying things again. The reality of national economics is that it can take years for economic policy to play out. You, for example, blamed Bush for exacerbating the housing bubble with a capital gains tax rate cut when Clinton had already exempted most homes from the capital gains tax in the first place.

Bush certainly gets a share of the blame for the economy meltdown. But there's plenty to go around, even if one wouldn't know it from the way Obama talks.

And Bush's policies did help pull the economy out of a 9-11 associated nosedive. The key is letting the market do the heavy lifting. Many Democrats don't get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be fine, if you would at the same time address the lack of evidence that befouls your accusations.

I not sure what this means.

It means that you keep asserting/implying that I don't understand a particular distinction in the law but you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in support of that assertion/implication. I'll end the game with this post. Pay attention.

Easy enough to state, I'm sure. Where is Ginsburg's statement to the effect that no intentional discrimination took place?

I've quoted it twice already! Here's the final paragraph of the dissent:

This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “asignificant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.”

The part I bolded is her rejection of the majority's conclusion that the city's refusal to certify was race-based discrimination (against those who made the list).

Right, but it doesn't mention intentions at all. It's as though you're still working from the liar's manual and pretending not to understand the question. Keep paying attention.

The underlined part is Ginsburg's rejection of the majority's conclusion that statistical disparities do not constitute disparate impact discrimination.

Right, and I've already explained that partial agreement does not make the disagreement I'm pointing out go away. But for some reason you ignore that (following the liar's manual?).

Keep paying attention.

For Ginsburg, statistical disparities may very well be (disparate impact) discrimination, as the Supreme Court's precedent in Griggs decided. The federal court, the Second Circuit/Sotomayor and Ginsburg would all uphold Griggs.

No, as I already explained, the Ginsburg opinion would have recommended remanding the case to the lower court for clarification if it had been the majority opinion. Are you paying attention? Great:

10The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.

Guess who wrote that (or at least signed off on it)? You get one guess, and you're allowed to cheat by using the Internets.

I amaze even myself with my ability to both ignore and conflate two distinct legal theories of discrimination (at the same time?). Can you explain the appearance of contradiction in your charge? Better yet, can you give a specific example of it via quotation?

Bryan, with each posting, you're making it more and more clear that you really don't get it. You conflated the two theories by saying the Second Circuit was rejected by Ginsburg.

No, I don't, and just to be clear I am saying that it was the reasoning of the Second Circuit that was rejected. I have the best possible support for my analysis. You're sunk.

You haven't been able to discuss the two forms of legal discrimination that are the core of Ricci.

You haven't been able to coherently explain why I should discuss them, and that's a question I asked of you very pointedly. Your own reasoning should lead you to conclude that the mystery person who wrote the big text I quoted above does not understand the distinction, either. Do you want to go there?

You just want to bang Sotomayor without analyzing the law on discrimination.

That's true. I consider the analysis you suggest a red herring. It isn't true that I can't criticize the decision without understanding the distinction you insist I must understand. You used that as a big fat distraction technique, perhaps because you're a lawyer and you can't help it. All I really need to understand is how to interpret the English language. You've made your case that I don't understand the issues with a combination of appeal to silence and lies. Did you notice how you weren't able to explain how I both ignore and conflate at the same time?

The Second Circuit/Sotomayor issued a very careful and conservative decision that followed the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. It was masterful.

It improperly relied on the city's intent. Maybe you'll begin to see it now, if you've been paying attention.

I don't recall asking you whether it was important to understand the two distinct legal theories of discrimination. I simply asked where I omitted making the distinction where it would be important for me to do so. You haven't addressed that question.

I did. Over and over. Again, because you can't debate Ricci without understanding the distinction.

lol

You're arguing in a circle. Is it that my argument could not in principle succeed because I do not understand the distinction, or is it that my argument (as you appeared to suggest) somehow conflates the things that should be kept distinct thus demonstrating that I don't understand the distinction? If the latter, you should be able to quote me instead of insisting that Ricci can't be debated without understanding the distinction. Naturally, you can't afford to get pinned down to either one. The liar's manual forbids it.

We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret.

So when you can't argue a point, you resort to name calling and refuse to address my points? LOL!

lol

What name do you think you were you called, O expert interpreter/debater/whatever? You just like to make stuff up. Let me guess: Was it "you"?

It's the equivalent of a child putting his hands to his ears and repeating, "I'm not listening," after he can't get his way.

Game over, man. Deal with the enlarged text. Your argument based on lies and fallacies is easy enough to defeat (except when it comes to opening the eyes of those with the most severe cases of liberal bias, perhaps), but the game really is over, now. I look forward to your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desperate Republicans

The language you cite is from a footnote in the dissent that you take out of context. Since you don't want to discuss the differences between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination, and the difficult questions arising from the tension between those two under Title VII, I'll reduce it to this: Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci (in which she was joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer) voted to AFFIRM the Second Circuit/Sotomayor decision. Affirm, period.

Your citation to a portion of that footnote is curious. A quick google search shows that the right wing blogosphere is using that portion of the footnote like you -- in effect to rewrite an outcome and disregard the difficult questions the Supreme Court and lower courts were addressing in Ricci.

What does that footnote mean? The dissent would have liked further fact finding by the district court on the disparate impact discrimination concern. In other words, the dissent would have preferred not to rule on the meaning of the law/Title VII. The majority didn't want any more fact finding and was ready to rule on the law. So the issue of the two theories of discrimination was joined. Ginsburg's dissent AFFIRMS the Second Circuit.

I repeat, the Second Circuit decision was masterful in its conclusion and brevity.

Your posting is insufferable and inaccurate.

Final word: I think Sotomayor will pick up at least a dozen Republicans voting for her confirmation. It'll be at least 72 in favor, maybe as high as 76 or 77. Reason and honesty shall prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The language you cite is from a footnote in the dissent that you take out of context.

Are you trying to say that the footnote quotation was taken out of context? Was it your insincerity that sabotaged your grammar?

There's no way the footnote is taken out of context. It has sufficient internal context to stand on its own. And here is the paragraph to which the footnote was attached (curious you didn't do this in order to justify your claim that it was taken out of context):

III

A

Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.10

Since you don't want to discuss the differences between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination, and the difficult questions arising from the tension between those two under Title VII, I'll reduce it to this: Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci (in which she was joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer) voted to AFFIRM the Second Circuit/Sotomayor decision. Affirm, period.

Baloney. The footnote absolutely belies your claim. If Ginsburg had intended to merely say that the lower courts did a fine job then she could have followed Sotomayor's course and simply written that and had done with it. Not only did she not do that, she led off the portion of her dissent following her critique of the majority view with an introduction that included footnote 10. There is no way you can plausibly dance around the content of that note. I'm amused that you're even trying.

Should I add that Ginsburg did not include the root word "affirm" in her dissent, in support of the Second Circuit's decision?

Your citation to a portion of that footnote is curious. A quick google search shows that the right wing blogosphere is using that portion of the footnote like you -- in effect to rewrite an outcome and disregard the difficult questions the Supreme Court and lower courts were addressing in Ricci.

Can you ever forgive me for reading conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy including posts by law professor Jonathan Adler? It's just crazy to pay attention to something written by a blogger!

What does that footnote mean? The dissent would have liked further fact finding by the district court on the disparate impact discrimination concern. In other words, the dissent would have preferred not to rule on the meaning of the law/Title VII. The majority didn't want any more fact finding and was ready to rule on the law. So the issue of the two theories of discrimination was joined. Ginsburg's dissent AFFIRMS the Second Circuit.

If that's all it meant, then why did Ginsburg include the part about the lower courts emphasizing intent? If she meant what you say she meant, then wouldn't she have been far better off not blurting out anything that seemed critical of the rationale used by the lower court? Apparently you're not enjoying your cognitive dissonance. So sorry.

Here's what the footnote really means: You're sunk.

I repeat, the Second Circuit decision was masterful in its conclusion and brevity.

I've got a great idea for you. Try repeating it a million more times. Maybe that will make it true.

Seriously, your approach to the problem simply ignores what Ginsburg wrote, which is an extremely close paraphrase of what I had written earlier.

Your posting is insufferable and inaccurate.

Well, at least that's a more mature way of whining than "Nanny-nanny boo-boo ..."

Final word: I think Sotomayor will pick up at least a dozen Republicans voting for her confirmation. It'll be at least 72 in favor, maybe as high as 76 or 77. Reason and honesty shall prevail.

You're probably right, and it doesn't much matter anyway. The Democrats in the Senate will overlook the incompetence she demonstrated with the Ricci decision and her apparent willingness to lie to the Senate regarding her "wise Latina" comments. And she probably won't be much worse than the rest of the libs on the Court. Most likely the Ricci case is not entirely representative of her work. But it's pretty clear that Obama could have chosen a better (liberal) mind for the Court, and it's equally clear that Republicans who wish to vote "no" to her confirmation have all the justification they need. She is too late in distancing herself from Obama's empathy qualification. And the American public has taken notice. Just like they'll be able to notice your pathetic attempt to sweep footnote #10 under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×