Page 60 of 147 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1467

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

  1. #591
    User SiriusXM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 10:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    62

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Gee...this is starting out like a whole new thing......NOT.

    It's like this guy has his speeches stashed in a salt shaker and just shakes one out for each occasion.
    Lol. It's called being the grand master of politics. Really everyone, we have to tip our hats to Obama for mastering politics beyond belief. Never have I seen anyone who's able to talk a blind man into believing that he can see again except jesus.

  2. #592
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusXM View Post
    Lol. It's called being the grand master of politics. Really everyone, we have to tip our hats to Obama for mastering politics beyond belief. Never have I seen anyone who's able to talk a blind man into believing that he can see again except jesus.
    Wrong, if it weren't for the swooning media, he'd have lost the election.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #593
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    wait.

    I can claim you are not only lying, but you are pulling your lies out of your ass. Then i can later claim I was simply showing the error of your ways.

    and some ass hat actually liked your reply based on that initial idiocy?

    wow.
    Ignore him.

  4. #594
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I guess we have a different POV about workers. To me, a worker is NOT a parasite. To you, apparently they are.



    You must be confusing me with someone who is arguing for a "living wage". I'm supporting a "minimum wage". I doubt any individual can consider $9 p/h a "living wage". So, to make an exaggeration like $25 per hour doesn't really help much in the context of this discussion. Productivity is very subjective. I have no idea what welfare is but I assume it is income based and thus an increase in income would result in a decrease in welfare.




    The minimum wage has existed since I first entered the workforce. At that time, it was 85 an hour. You may be against the concept of a minimum wage but the question is not whether to have a minimum wage, but to determine what that minimum wage is.

    The last minimum wage increase was under the Bush administration. If your objections are ased on your dislike of Obama, then please just say so. I'm discussing one single aspect of the SOTU speech and I think it bears examination not clouded by partisan hatred. Obama wasn't my choice either. But that doesn't mean I must condemn every single action of his administration.
    Speaking of partisanship.

  5. #595
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Explain this: Norway and Denmark retained the pole positions they held last year in the overall prosperity measure, while Sweden leapfrogged Australia and New Zealand into third. Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland rounded out the top ten.
    In its sub-indexes, Legatum named Switzerland the strongest economy and home to the best system of governance. Denmark is the most entrepreneurial and New Zealand has the best education, while health is best in Luxembourg and Iceland is the safest. Canadians enjoy the most personal freedom and Norwegians have the greatest social capital. Every one of them is a liberal government.
    I believe the question was to explain California.

    The government in California is one of the most progressive in the Nation, and the agressive actions they have been taking go back before 2000. That leaves 14 years to answer for.

  6. #596
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by uhohhotdog View Post
    If the US had it's own national oil company, we'd have a lot more
    money too. That's not very "free market".
    What percent of every gallon of gas is tax's ? Because if your'e arguing FOR a nationalized oil industry you have a narrow grasp of the Oil Industry.

    For doing nothing what percentage of every gallon of gas does the Govt take in ?

    Because its ignorant to say we would take in more money if it was nationalized and the FED took on the massive extra cost of everything from research, to drilling to distrubition, to process to exploration, etc.

    Did you vote for Obama ?

    Im trying to understand how someone could make such a glaring error in reason. To NOT take into account the massive expenditures of running a nationalized oil company OR the arbitrary assumption that the Govt would have more money if it nationalized its energy sector.

    If your'e a Obama supporter that explains everything.

  7. #597
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Explain it to me?

    HowStuffWorks "Gas Price Breakdown"

    Taxes: 13 cents
    Distribution and Marketing: 8 cents
    Refining: 14 cents
    Crude oil: 65 cents

    This is what the average breakdown looked like in April 2011. Let's look at those components in more detail.

    Crude oil - The biggest portion of the cost of gas goes to the crude-oil suppliers. This is determined by the world's oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which you will learn more about in the next section. The amount of crude oil these countries produce determines the price of a barrel of oil. Crude-oil prices averaged around $35 per barrel (1 barrel = 42 gallons or 158.99 L) in 2004. And, after Hurricane Katrina, some prices were almost double that. In April 2008, crude-oil prices averaged around $104.74 per barrel. During that month, the price of oil reached a record price of almost $120 a barrel [source: DOE]. By May 16, prices had topped $117 per barrel [source: MarketWatch]. On May 22, markets in New York and London reported prices past $135 per barreland, and on July 11, oil hit an all-time high of $147 [source: Forbes, New York Sun]. Analysts speculated that everything from investment in oil futures to increasing demand from countries like India and China contributed to the spike in price.
    Taxes .13 per gallon? Where in the hell do you live. There are Federal Excise taxes, state excise taxes, and in many states local and maybe even sales taxes on gasoline. I suggest better research on your part. Product costs are also not profits to oil companies who have to pay for most of the product they sell and then pay for finding the product, getting the product out of the ground, refining, and marketing. It does seem you have a problem understanding profit as well as risk taking. Not surprising.

  8. #598
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I'm citing a fact, and you keep calling it a talkng point? Yeah right, facts are the talking points that conservatives hate. I get it. We have a deficit reduction taking place right now. Where have you been? We learned about a month ago that the U.S. budget deficit for the most recent fiscal year fell to $1.089 trillion, $200 billion smaller than it was last year, and nearly $300 billion smaller than when President Obama took office.

    For the right, the complaints stayed the same -- the deficit that exploded under Bush/Cheney was still too high. But regardless of ideology, the fact remains that there's been an enormous drop in the size of the deficit in the first half of the Obama era.

    You seem to have a problem with understanding expenses and what a reduction is. did we spend more last year than the year before and so on? A smaller growth in the deficit than the previous year isn't a reduction in spending. Typical liberal talking points, the deficit is down which obviously means less spending? The U.S. Treasury Dept disagrees with you but then again you know better. Too bad we don't spend based upon what you claim.

  9. #599
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction.

    In fact ( I know how conservatives hate facts ) the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.

    Reagan had the greatest spending at Annualized Growth of Federal spending in his first term at 8.7% Bush's second term had the second highest at 8.1%. His first term was at 7.3%
    Obama has had the lowest at 1.4%. Next to Obama was Clinton first at 3.2% and Clinton second at 3.9%

    Fact: the president's record is exactly the opposite of what Romney says. And how long ago was this statistic released by the Wall Street Journal and subsequently affirmed by fact checkers? Five months ago.

    Furthermore, I can name two Democratic presidents who've cut the deficit through the duration of their presidencies: Clinton and Obama. And what about Republican presidents? 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. Bush 41? No. Reagan? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. The last Republican president who cut the deficit was Eisenhower. Of course we don't see Republicans like Ike anymore, do we?
    Do you have any idea what debt service is or even what the actual spending was? Try educating yourself and think for a change. Here, this will help you but doubt seriously that you have any desire to learn actual facts

    Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

    Cuts in the deficit are irrelevant when govt. spending increases which it has every year under Obama.

  10. #600
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    LOL! How would you propose to get more taxes from the unemployed and those making minimum wage? Don't you think it would be better to work out ways to get them jobs that pay a living wage?
    How about a novel concept of putting economic policies in place to grow the economy to create jobs? A strong economy creates jobs that pay salaries and collects taxes from employees. Seems you don't know nearly as much as you seem to believe. The entire point is we have almost 50 of working Americans not paying any FIT and another 13 million unemployed/discouxraged workers payng zero as well so you want to tax the top 1% of the labor force more? Brilliant economic policy.

Posting Permissions

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