• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of the Union Address

Sounded like a campaign speech to me. This guy, like all politicians, infuriates me with his manipulation of policy to receive a vote. Who wants to take the bet that he approves the Keystone Pipeline closer to November? He played to his base, he played to independents, and said just enough things that we know aren't true to sound good to moderate "conservatives".
 
MarineTpartier said:
Sounded like a campaign speech to me. This guy, like all politicians, infuriates me with his manipulation of policy to receive a vote. Who wants to take the bet that he approves the Keystone Pipeline closer to November? He played to his base, he played to independents, and said just enough things that we know aren't true to sound good to moderate "conservatives".
Click to expand...

What's a "moderate conservative"? Aren't those two mutually exclusive?
 
American said:
Yeah I watched it, and I think it's one of Obama's worst speeches ever. Much of the language didn't sound presidential, the delivery was off, and wasn't he usual quality.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, a hyper partisan conservative thinks Obama's speech was bad. Color me suprised. :roll:

In more breaking news, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.
 
Catawba said:
"The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.

The key numbers: this year those earning over $1 million will pay, on average, 29.1 percent on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent.

That’s not to say that there aren’t wealthy people who are even better than Buffett at avoiding taxes. In 2009, 1,470 people with incomes over $1 million a year paid absolutely no taxes. But that represents less than 1 percent of those earning over $1 million a year. Raising their taxes may be the fair thing to do, but it will not bring in much revenue.

There were 236,883 taxpayers who earned more than $1 million in 2009. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of all filers.

The Top 400 tax filers – the very richest Americans – do pay a lower rate of just 18.11 percent of their total income. Why? Many of them are hedge fund managers and people like Buffet — their income is pegged how much their investment fund grows. For some reason, this income is counted as so-called “carried interest” (even though it is not interest at all; it’s more like a performance bonus) and is taxed at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/



Good thing you didn't take that bet Maggie!
Click to expand...

Shut up Sheik. AGI numbers for 2010.jpg
Top 1% get 16% of the income and pay 38% of the taxes.
Top 5% get 35% of the income and pay 59% of the taxes.
Top 10% get 46% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes.

We cant even get enough money if the top 1% paid ALL of their income. We are spending too much money and this chucklehead wants us to just spend more and more. Hes the most dangerous kind of crazy, the kind with a lot of power and no idea of the consequences down the road.
 
disneydude said:
Just a little information that I'm sure will tweak the haters:

Yahoo! audience reacts: 63% say Obama made the case for a second term | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


63% believe that Obama made the case for a second-term (and this doesn't even factor in the two sorry candidates that are vying for the GOP nod)
Click to expand...

WOOOOOOOW

A Yahoo Online Poll.

Well, that'll have to compete with Ron Paul who will obviously be the Republic Nominee and wipe the floor with Obama...Online polls say so.
 
Catawba said:
Hes provided more funding for clean energy than any president in history during his first year!
Click to expand...

He's promised taxpayer money. He himself has provided nothing. He's worried about clean energy that will skyrocket energy costs for all of us, when we have alot of folks who can't even afford their light bill as it is.
 
Catawba said:
"The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.

The key numbers: this year those earning over $1 million will pay, on average, 29.1 percent on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent.

That’s not to say that there aren’t wealthy people who are even better than Buffett at avoiding taxes. In 2009, 1,470 people with incomes over $1 million a year paid absolutely no taxes. But that represents less than 1 percent of those earning over $1 million a year. Raising their taxes may be the fair thing to do, but it will not bring in much revenue.

There were 236,883 taxpayers who earned more than $1 million in 2009. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of all filers.

The Top 400 tax filers – the very richest Americans – do pay a lower rate of just 18.11 percent of their total income. Why? Many of them are hedge fund managers and people like Buffet — their income is pegged how much their investment fund grows. For some reason, this income is counted as so-called “carried interest” (even though it is not interest at all; it’s more like a performance bonus) and is taxed at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/

Good thing you didn't take that bet Maggie!
Click to expand...

You just cannot stand being wrong, can you? In fact, your own post proves you wrong on your other thread. Thanks for putting it out there:

This year those earning over $1 million will pay, on average, 29.1 percent on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent.
Click to expand...

Obama said:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
Click to expand...

That is completely false. There is not an ounce of truth in it. Justabubba said he saw a weasel in my post, and it wasn't you. I posted that you weren't a weasel. You weaseled on your bet. And you did. Live with it. The weasel was Obama. He made that statement intentionally and, interestingly, in the same sentence with "class warfare."

In the political sphere, this type of language is used to "spin" or alter the public's perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt argued that "one of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use ...'weasel words'; when one 'weasel word' is used ... after another there is nothing left".
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bush doubled unemployment.

That's your idea of a good president, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah...Bush did that...no insane oil speculation, the housing bubble burst that was 30 years in the making (and largely facilitated by Clinton-era legislation), or the failure of the auto industry and major banking giants.

Yeah...TOTALLY all Bush.

/rolls eyes
 
Moderator's Warning:
While some may think State of the Union addresses are nothing more than Campaign Speeches in the modern era, factually they are not. This thread doesn't belong in the Presidentail Election forum. Moved to *Breaking News* and full transcript added to original post
 
Catawba said:
Man, Obama is tearing up the place tonight!!! And Boehner looks like he's trying to swallow a cat!

Anybody watching this???
Click to expand...

Good Lord, NO!

I've seen him distort and lie before. Why should I put myself thought that again?

I watched some re-runs of The Big Bang Theory. Then I watched a great speech by Mr. Daniels.
 
Zyphlin said:
Moderator's Warning:
While some may think State of the Union addresses are nothing more than Campaign Speeches in the modern era, factually they are not. This thread doesn't belong in the Presidentail Election forum. Moved to *Breaking News* and full transcript added to original post
Click to expand...

OK, fine, but will you also include the full transcript of the rebuttal by Mr. Daniels'?

More info:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php#axzz1kTqjVXKC
 
Last edited:
It amazes me that people are so partisan that they won't even watch the SOTU speech. As much as I disagreed with Bush, I never missed one of his SOTU addresses.
 
tessaesque said:
Yeah...Bush did that...no insane oil speculation, the housing bubble burst that was 30 years in the making (and largely facilitated by Clinton-era legislation), or the failure of the auto industry and major banking giants.

Yeah...TOTALLY all Bush.

/rolls eyes
Click to expand...
No, not all by himself. He plenty of help.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

To whom do you think Bush was crediting success of all-time high home ownership when he said "our" in that self congradulatory statement?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, not all by himself. He plenty of help.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

To whom do you think Bush was crediting success of all-time high home ownership when he said "our" in that self congradulatory statement?
Click to expand...

Home ownership is a good thing. Being able to afford and pay for that home is even a better thing.

Once the government got involved in the home loan business it was bound to be screwed up......and it most assuredly was.

Once again the government was the problem, not the solution.
 
a777pilot said:
Home ownership is a good thing. Being able to afford and pay for that home is even a better thing.

Once the government got involved in the home loan business it was bound to be screwed up......and it most assuredly was.

Once again the government was the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...

It was private lenders, private credit ratings firms, and private derivatives traders who caused this blow up -- not the government. It could have been prevented with effective government regulation, but regs were either not enforced, repealed, or blocked by members of both parties.
 
My opinion? The whole thing reaked of campaigning for me. Half expected him to burst into another Al Green song half way through, just for giggles. My idea of what a SOTU speech should be is so far removed from the speeches I've seen, and that's disappointing. Last year, I thought he did a really good job with his speech, even if it was more "follow me" and less "here's where we're at, here's how we move forward". I particularly enjoyed last years portion regarding education.

This year, though...If I'm honest? He came across as fake. His business proposal to bring companies back to the U.S. is essentially a mimic of the model Texas uses to attract businesses moving from other states....and it won't work on a national/international scale because we just can't compete on labor.

Then he discusses an energy policy that is half dem-centric and half con-centric, but proposes it as if nobody on the right has ever tried to do exactly what he's suggesting (from the con-centric side, that is).

His coverage of education was weak, and his "community college --> 'career center'" idea disturbs me. We already have tech/trade schools. We already have tech/trade degree programs at comm college. Turning these schools into "career centers" would likely eliminate the two-year-then-transfer model many students use to save money on college by distorting course offerings so that they more closely mimic tech/trade schools. I DID agree with him on "teaching to the test" but his "solution" was nothing but a list of vague platitudes. And what about a progress report on the system implemented to replace/modify NCLB? I didn't hear much on that.

He proposed some interesting legislation, some things I'm sure both of the parties could come together on....but then he wants to throw the legislature under the bus on the SS tax cut extension, completely ignoring that the very real chance at a 1-year extension was shat upon and dismissed in favor of a 2-month stop gap over some very paltry issues....and that failure is bi-partisan, IMO.

Overall, I felt like I was listening to a stump speech in a swing state, and I don't like that. I don't want you making promises and stroking your ego. I want to know what's been done, what you think we (the country, not you) need to do more, and how you're working with the rest of govt. to get it done. The "I will", "I did", "I want", "I signed" approach grates on me. He may be the biggest cog in the machine, but he's still one cog. If we're expecting an atmosphere of mutual contribution and bipartisanship it can't be about the president's accomplishments or desires.

And because it'll come up: Yes, I'd say the exact same things about the format/delivery if it were a republican president. This isn't about Obama's affiliation, it's about his presentation.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
It was private lenders, private credit ratings firms, and private derivatives traders who caused this blow up -- not the government. It could have been prevented with effective government regulation, but regs were either not enforced, repealed, or blocked by members of both parties.
Click to expand...

Oh, now that's just too funny.

Do you really believe that? Really, you can't.
 
AdamT said:
It was private lenders, private credit ratings firms, and private derivatives traders who caused this blow up -- not the government. It could have been prevented with effective government regulation, but regs were either not enforced, repealed, or blocked by members of both parties.
Click to expand...

Bull****. It was an inflationary bubble, started by government. The crazy loans did not start until the bubble was well in place, as it was the bubble which enabled the added risk. Fannie and Freddie started the bubble, then kept it growing, eventually changing their own rules so that they could keep up with private money.
 
a777pilot said:
Oh, now that's just too funny.

Do you really believe that? Really, you can't.
Click to expand...

Its the liberal fairytale story line, and they hold onto it as tightly as they do their Obama blanket. ;)
 
AdamT said:
It amazes me that people are so partisan that they won't even watch the SOTU speech. As much as I disagreed with Bush, I never missed one of his SOTU addresses.
Click to expand...

It has little to do with partisanship, and much to do with predictability. SOTU speeches are highly symbolic and chock full of showmanship. I don't care what the president has to say. I care what he does. Obama is very predictable to be divisive and use the class warfare tactic. I find that personally distasteful, and I don't put much stock in anything he says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom