Page 59 of 147 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169109 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 1467

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

  1. #581
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Conservatoid (con-serv-a-toid)
    Verb

    To protect the TOID (TO pogaphic ID entifier)

  2. #582
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    This is almost too comical to warrant a response. Do you think the government just hid the debt for eight years and then all of the sudden dumped it into the President's lap?
    Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Do the math.

    By B. Furnas on Feb 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that President Obama, in the budget he’s releasing next week, will not use “four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller.”

    The changes: account for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (“overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of “emergency” supplemental spending bills, assume the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, account for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipate the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than the distorted Bush baseline, but that debt was always there. It was just being hidden. President Bush’s budgets hid billions with elaborate budget gimmicks. They took war-spending off the books, tried to eliminate the costs of wildly expensive tax cuts for the wealthy, and claimed savings through unrealistic, unspecified future cuts in vital discretionary spending.

    I remember vividly when it was announced that Bush would remove the wars from the budget. I also remember as vividly that Obama would put them back on the books. And yes...it was hidden for eight years because so many people didn't even bother to ask questions. We went to war on lies and nobody asked questions. Why would you think that this was so hard to do?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  3. #583
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayno View Post
    Thank you, G. W. Bush......

    It takes about 3 years from the time you apply for a drilling permit until you first drill...

    I guess Obama can blame Bush for his success there as well.

    Right..and Bush actually killed bin Laden.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #584
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by uhohhotdog View Post
    More sickening comments from conservatives. EVERYONE that works full time hours should have a basic living wage. It's called being human and having empathy.

    I can't believe how little people here care about others. It's all everyone for themselves. So disgusting. It makes me literally sick to my stomach that people actually think this way.
    Amen to that.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #585
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Yes, rates adjusted to constant 1996 dollars...NEWSFLASH...this is 2012! Note how the adjusted rate in 1996 is $4.75, what is the min. wage today?...$7.25 which equates to $4.97 (per your source) which is ABOVE $4.75...YOU ARE WRONG...see?
    Why would you oppose a $9 minimum wage? Do you want to keep people living in poverty? Most jobs pay more then the minimum amyway. This takes people barely over the poverty line.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #586
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Why would you oppose a $9 minimum wage? Do you want to keep people living in poverty? Most jobs pay more then the minimum amyway. This takes people barely over the poverty line.
    I think it makes much more sense than supplementing the wages of cheap employers with US tax dollars, and it is would have the added bonus of stimulating the economy more. Its a win/win proposition!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #587
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    The multiplier effect (the amount of GDP that is increased by one dollar of spending) for low-income earners is according to a Dartmouth study titled “real time estimates of the effect of the American recovery and reinvestment act “the multiplier effect is between 1.96 to 2.31.which is pretty good, considering that infrastructure spending,which most consider the gold standard for stimulus spending is 1.85.And anyone making $9.00 bucks (let alone the current rate) an hour would/ will,imo qualify as low-income workers.
    There was no multiplier effect with Obama's Stimulus and there was no "Infrastructure Spending" really associated with it, despite Obama's promises. It's a myth. Government is recycling resources. Taking from the left hand to pay the right hand. No new wealth is being created. His stimulus had a multiplier effect of 1. If it created wealth it wouldn't have added it's entire cost and more to the deficit. Seriously, you really need to quit now before further embarrassment. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.



    By the way please explain to me how increasing the economy, by putting more money into the peoples pocket that have lost ground for the last thirty years”will crowd out young unskilled workers and minorities out of the Labor Market “.Who makes up the majority of those that will get their wages kicked up.
    I already explained it to you in the previous post. It can already be seen in the current labor market. There are 8 million less people working now then when Obama took office. They left the Labor Market. The Labor Force Participation rate has shrunk dramatically within 4 years. Hence more competition for the fewer and fewer jobs available. Employers are able to be more picky with who they hire, hence why we have so many people that are also underemployed. This causes the most unskilled workers to be crowded out of the Labor Market (Youth/Minorities). If you increase worker costs even more on employers through Government intervention by raising the minimum wage, employers are only going to cut costs and raise prices on their goods and services. That means layoffs. A centrally planned Government can't legislate how business will react to their demands. Look this is basic economics. It's not my problem you are unable to grasp it.

  8. #588
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    "The insta-returns are in and the president knocked the State of the Union out of the ballpark.”

    " A CBS poll directly following the speech showed 91 percent of viewers approved of the proposals Obama made, while 9 percent disapproved. “No great surprises here,” Schlesinger writes. “The speech was well-delivered and seemed to be constructed not to pick partisan fights.”

    Was President Obama
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #589
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There was no multiplier effect with Obama's Stimulus and there was no "Infrastructure Spending" really associated with it, despite Obama's promises. It's a myth. Government is recycling resources. Taking from the left hand to pay the right hand. No new wealth is being created. His stimulus had a multiplier effect of 1. If it created wealth it wouldn't have added it's entire cost and more to the deficit. Seriously, you really need to quit now before further embarrassment. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.





    I already explained it to you in the previous post. It can already be seen in the current labor market. There are 8 million less people working now then when Obama took office. They left the Labor Market. The Labor Force Participation rate has shrunk dramatically within 4 years. Hence more competition for the fewer and fewer jobs available. Employers are able to be more picky with who they hire, hence why we have so many people that are also underemployed. This causes the most unskilled workers to be crowded out of the Labor Market (Youth/Minorities). If you increase worker costs even more on employers through Government intervention by raising the minimum wage, employers are only going to cut costs and raise prices on their goods and services. That means layoffs. A centrally planned Government can't legislate how business will react to their demands. Look this is basic economics. It's not my problem you are unable to grasp it.

    If you increase worker costs even more on employers through Government intervention by raising the minimum wage, employers are only going to cut costs and raise prices on their goods and services. That means layoffs. A centrally planned Government can't legislate how business will react to their demands. Look this is basic economics. It's not my problem you are unable to grasp it
    That is absolutely ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage won't do squat to employers. What it will do is provide more spending into the economy by workers that are now making a living wage. Your assuming that everyone is making minimum wage when they aren't. Most employers pay higher than the minimum wage already. You're talking about minimum wage jobs like McDonalds or Wal-Mart? Do you actually think that these companies can't afford to pay a living wage to people? All you're doing is advocating for employers to get the cheapest labor they can get. So what if a person is working 40 hours and getting paid below poverty. We wouldn't want to hurt the employer would we? This is amazing! You're actually a champion for keeping people in poverty. Well done. Have you considered that the more money people have the more they will spend and the more demand for goods and that employer will have to meet the demand by hiring people rather than laying off anybody? It's consumer spending that drives jobs. It's not my problem that you don't grasp that.
    Last edited by Adagio; 02-14-13 at 04:43 AM.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #590
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "The insta-returns are in and the president knocked the State of the Union out of the ballpark.”

    " A CBS poll directly following the speech showed 91 percent of viewers approved of the proposals Obama made, while 9 percent disapproved. “No great surprises here,” Schlesinger writes. “The speech was well-delivered and seemed to be constructed not to pick partisan fights.”

    Was President Obama

    Wow. The poll number I heard was 67% approval of the speech. 91%??? He spoke for an hour and didn't need any water. I know Rubio was under a lot of pressure being in a small room with only a couple of people there. I mean... that's real pressure. What would the president of the United States know about real pressure?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •