• 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!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Re: SOTU Address:

Who cares the Forbes article pointed right back to Marketwatch? The original data was deeply flawed, who calls it true doesnt matter, because it isn't. My original comment stands:

You slam my sources... INCLUDING forbes and marketwatch yet offer nothing in return and expect readers to believe you as a more viable source than my links? Ain't it easy being the stone thrower instead of having to prove anything?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Aren't you just in the source slamming mood tonight...


US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.

You know what the problem with your sourcing is?
The Secret Service does not reveal the amount of threats on the President. Again, stop sourcing bullcrap.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You're quick. So quick in fact that you missed that I edited and changed the link to a Forbes story. Just because I new someone would complain about politifact.

Look at the numbers for Chrissakes. Its simple hocus-pocus for the low-information voter.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You know what the problem with your sourcing is?
The Secret Service does not reveal the amount of threats on the President. Again, stop sourcing bullcrap.

Everyone's lying right? :lol:

You refuted politifact as a source saying it's bias... didn't provide **** to prove it.
You refuted Forbes as a source saying the story was bias... didn't provide a source to prove it.
You refuted the book written about death threats on Obama by implying that it's all lies... and you didn't provide **** to prove it.

You are simply trying to take an easy angle of whining and bringing nothing.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You slam my sources... INCLUDING forbes and marketwatch yet offer nothing in return and expect readers to believe you as a more viable source than my links? Ain't it easy being the stone thrower instead of having to prove anything?

CAN YOU NOT READ?!?
To get the results to come out that way you have to: ignore the fact that Obama signed the 2009 budget resolution--not Bush, ignore TARP spending but COUNT TARP repays, ignore the Stimulus, and push all military spending resolutions into 2009 rather than the ongoing that were passed after Obama enterered office.

Let me know if you can refute that. Or you can go back to the original marketwatch thread on this site, as I remember there were about 3 of them. I pointed out what data was cherry picked and in what way, in which your response was to change your source? Refute what Im saying and I can have a conversation with you, but if you keep tossing out nonsense that I have already shown you that you have to warp figures to get the results you want...we dont have much to talk about.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Look at the numbers for Chrissakes. Its simple hocus-pocus for the low-information voter.

Do any of you guys care to prove anything you say or do you all just expect to take your word for it?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Everyone's lying right? :lol:

You refuted politifact as a source saying it's bias... didn't provide **** to prove it.
You refuted Forbes as a source saying the story was bias... didn't provide a source to prove it.
You refuted the book written about death threats on Obama by implying that it's all lies... and you didn't provide **** to prove it.

You are simply trying to take an easy angle of whining and bringing nothing.

Once again...the Secret Service does not release threat numbers in any capacity. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.

I gave you the exact methods that Marketwatch came about its data. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.

Im bringing facts, you are bringing gossip journalism to sell a book and biased sources that are using data to provide political cover, not uncover whats going on.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

CAN YOU NOT READ?!?


Let me know if you can refute that. Or you can go back to the original marketwatch thread on this site, as I remember there were about 3 of them. I pointed out what data was cherry picked and in what way, in which your response was to change your source? Refute what Im saying and I can have a conversation with you, but if you keep tossing out nonsense that I have already shown you that you have to warp figures to get the results you want...we dont have much to talk about.


The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign...​

Interesting... coming from the Weekly Standard. Refute that.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Once again...the Secret Service does not release threat numbers in any capacity. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.

I gave you the exact methods that Marketwatch came about its data. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.

Im bringing facts, you are bringing gossip journalism to sell a book and biased sources that are using data to provide political cover, not uncover whats going on.

You're bringing unsourced bullcrap and depending on people to believe whatever the hell you type. I however, bring sources. Clever. That way you can throw stones while NOT living in your glass house.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You're bringing unsourced bullcrap and depending on people to believe whatever the hell you type. I however, bring sources. Clever. That way you can throw stones while NOT living in your glass house.

Is this because you have no thoughts of your own to contribute?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign...​

Interesting... coming from the Weekly Standard. Refute that.

Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt : NPR

Context. BTW the Omnibus budget bill increased baseline spending by $400billion and SOMEHOW Bush is responsible for it, when he didnt sign it. That dog wont hunt.
 
BTW Rob, which source do you want to use? MarketWatch, Forbes opinion article or the Weekly Standard because according the Standard:

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.

I dunno, seems like a picture of fiscal restraint to me.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Yeah, I for the life of me don't know what I am "surrendering".... Sounds more like a 5 year old, I keep wondering if the next words typed are going to call me a "big doody head" or something.....:mrgreen:
We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:
 
Re: SOTU Address:

We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:

I agree, but I must admit, I was a pretty staunch supporter up until he came out with the whole 'we gotta trash the free market system, to save the free market system' crap...Then I started looking into progressivism, and realized that progressives were in both parties....Now, I listen carefully.
 
Nonsense. When you continually mandate wage above its level of earned productivity, you make it non-competitive for the employer, and you benefit those elsewhere with lower labor costs. That is not an opinion, it is a dynamic fact.

The stupid is with the low-information Obamabots and liberals, who are blind to tomorrow.

Come, now, Eighty Deuce. You know as well as I do that regardless of how much an item may cost to produce, retailers can and DO mark-up the wholesale price of said iteam as little as 100%. Just look at theiPhone. It really doesn't cost that much to product the darn thing, but it retails for $199 and that's just for the low-end model. So, your argument that the mimimum wage is somehow an unearned cost of production is absord! If anything, businesowners will consider all other administrative costs in figuring payroll whether the minimum wage is raised or not.
 
Come, now, Eighty Deuce. You know as well as I do that regardless of how much an item may cost to produce, retailers can and DO mark-up the wholesale price of said iteam as little as 100%. Just look at theiPhone. It really doesn't cost that much to product the darn thing, but it retails for $199 and that's just for the low-end model. So, your argument that the mimimum wage is somehow an unearned cost of production is absord! If anything, businesowners will consider all other administrative costs in figuring payroll whether the minimum wage is raised or not.

Apple is one of the few companies that you can use for an example of 100%+ mark-up. That being said, their mark-up is justified by the zombie-fan-boy following they have! You were responding to a comment that referred to pricing labor out of the market. Apple is not the best example to use in a counter-point - considering they gouge the sh*t out of their prices and haven't really updated their product since it was originally released (somewhere, an iPhone fan-boy just had a migraine because I wrote that).

Most companies mark their products up 40% or less. I work for a company that deals with welding supplies. We have suppliers that we purchase products from to resell (we mark up 30% to remain competitive). First, we have to buy the product. Then we need to keep an inventory of the products. We need people to get on the road and sell them and write invoices. We need people to pick up supplies and stock them. We need a building to keep our supplies in, we also need to pay the lease, electric, water, internet, credit-card machine, we need to pay the company that prints all of our paper-products... The list goes on-and-on. All of those "administrative" costs are paid for by the mark-up. Including salaries. Now, I have enjoyed salary increases because I remain productive and always try to do more than expected... However, what would happen if my salary was forcefully increased instead of volume dictating it? Well, now we have to mark-up prices (making us less competitive) or trim down some hours (forcing us to do more work in less time, making us less efficient, i.e. less competitive) or fire people (making us less competitive)...

History has proven only unintended consequences come from a minimum wage. When the President said "no family should live in poverty (paraphrase)", in regards to raising the minimum wage to $9/hr... what family do you know is prospering from the bread-winner earning $9/hr?
 
Come, now, Eighty Deuce. You know as well as I do that regardless of how much an item may cost to produce, retailers can and DO mark-up the wholesale price of said iteam as little as 100%. Just look at theiPhone. It really doesn't cost that much to product the darn thing, but it retails for $199 and that's just for the low-end model. So, your argument that the mimimum wage is somehow an unearned cost of production is absord! If anything, businesowners will consider all other administrative costs in figuring payroll whether the minimum wage is raised or not.

So we make the iPhone here ? Under jurisdiction of US MW laws ?

Actually, I think such as pizza and hamburgers and stocking shelves is a bit more of an accurate product/service environment to look at. Where profit margins are typically in the 3-5% range, if that.

Come now .......... ;)
 
Last edited:
Yet, the knock is always that republicans are the ones responsible for "outsourcing", seems that is yet another bit of projection from the left.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:

It might be tougher this time around, BRC, because of the number of people dependent on the government and not themselves. And of course you have the demographic problem.
Mark Steyn: And I still don’t quite know how I did it, but it always fascinates me, because people are interested in demography at the micro level. Like if you talk to political consultants, they’ll say oh, well, the reason that this or that candidate has problems in the 12th Congressional district is because there’s been a decline of blue collar industry, and an influx of middle class soccer moms and all the rest of it. And they talk about demography in the micro sense like that. But they rarely address it in the big picture sense, which is that the basic reason why the Western world is broke and going out of business is that the baby boomers set up welfare programs that require traditional birthrates to support them. And if you have an upside down pyramid, upside down family tree, you basically are going out of business. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren. So it’s not just that Greece is broke, but it’s a more basic question than that. Is it likely that the debts run up by 100 people can be paid off by 42 people? And I think we all know the answer to that.

And more good news: Mortimer Zuckerman: By Any Measure, the Jobs Disaster Continues - WSJ.com
 
Dinner is served.

eat-crow.jpg


We're all dazzled by your really poor attempt at selective editing.

18379_107684425911207_100000089509898_192186_4795520_n.jpg
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Everyone's lying right? :lol:

You refuted politifact as a source saying it's bias... didn't provide **** to prove it.
You refuted Forbes as a source saying the story was bias... didn't provide a source to prove it.
You refuted the book written about death threats on Obama by implying that it's all lies... and you didn't provide **** to prove it.

You are simply trying to take an easy angle of whining and bringing nothing.

They live in their own bubble.:screwy
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Do any of you guys care to prove anything you say or do you all just expect to take your word for it?

The problem with them is that they're conservatives but have no idea why? It has no basis to it. They just "believe" in it. You can't open the mind of a religious fanatic and you can't open the mind of an ideologue.

Buy a gun; because the quickest way to a womens heart, is through her ribs.
 
The problem with them is that they're
conservatives but have no idea why? It has no basis to it. They just "believe" in it. You can't open the mind of a religious fanatic and you can't open the mind of an ideologue.

Buy a gun; because the quickest way to a womens heart, is through her ribs.

pot meet kettle....

You have to be THE biggest hypocrite here and that's saying something.

You post nonsensical leftist talking points and call people blind ideologues.

You insult and then complain about ad hominum attacks.

You have yet to post anything of substance, and every one of your post has been refuted by people much brighter than yourself and much more honest.
 
BTW Rob, which source do you want to use? MarketWatch, Forbes opinion article or the Weekly Standard because according the Standard:
I dunno, seems like a picture of fiscal restraint to me.

You're failing to note that Bush kept both wars off the books. President Bush's 2009 federal budget, did not declare how much funding the administration expects to need for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. The omission appears to break a law that requires the inclusion of the year's total war funds in the annual budget plan.

The administration's budget includes an "emergency allowance" of $70 billion, but states that more money will be requested once the war's "specific needs" are determined.

Not providing a full-year war budget estimate is technically illegal, according to a provision in the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, although there's no mechanism for enforcing that law. Congress enacted the provision on the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, which emphasized that funding GWOT through so-called "emergency" requests "reduces transparency and avoids the necessary reexamination of commitments, investment priorities and trade-offs."

Bush's flaunting of the legislation let him off the hook on explaining the enormous cost of war to the American people, according to Anita Dancs, research director of the National Priorities Project.

What's more, in its projections for fiscal year 2010 and beyond, the administration projected zero dollars for the wars. Based on these "projections" and only a thin slice of the funding necessary to continue status quo operations in Iraq, the administration argued that its 2009 plan will set the government on track to balance the federal budget by 2012.

Withholding Iraq/Afghanistan war funds from the budget estimate not only makes a balanced budget seem possible, it also prevents a clear view of how war spending affects the federal deficit, according to Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at OMB Watch, a nonprofit government-watchdog organization. The budget slashed funds for health care, education and housing programs in the interest of "balancing the budget," while billions of dollars in war funds, not yet formally requested, are exempt from scrutiny.

Jennings pointed to how the omission of war costs from the annual budget has distorted thinking on the federal deficit in past years.

"In 2006, the administration spent $120 billion on war," Jennings said. "Almost half of the budget deficit was because of war funding, but we never had this conversation nationally, because it wasn't included in the budget. When you have supplemental funding, it looks like free money. It makes it seem like there are no consequences to spending it."

That illusion of debtlessness not only drains federal coffers; it also inhibits us from seeing what's at stake when military operations keep growing, according to Dancs.


Obama To Put Cost of War on the Books, for the First Time in Eight Years
Posted by ralphon February 27, 2009

Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds, LA Times:

After eight years of budget practices that often camouflaged federal spending, President Obama is planning a new strategy of putting on the books as many costs as possible to demonstrate the extent of the nation’s economic troubles, senior White House officials say.

Obama’s first budget, scheduled to be released in broad outline Thursday, will include at the outset money for the Iraq war, the military buildup in Afghanistan and other expenditures. The approach is in contrast to that of the previous administration, which often tucked such costly commitments into separate spending requests that would go to Congress later.

When you examine the deficit, it might be a good idea to look at the money that was spent on the wars as a huge part of it. Just taking it off the books may make you feel better, but it's still there.
 
Back
Top Bottom