Page 82 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492132 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 1467

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

  1. #811
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    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?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  2. #812
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,810

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    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.

  3. #813
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,810

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

    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 ó 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) ó 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 ó 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.

  4. #814
    Student BigRedChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In my mind
    Last Seen
    07-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    200

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    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.....
    We survived George W., this country can survive anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The constitution says corporations have some of the same rights as "persons".

  5. #815
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
    We survived George W., this country can survive anything.
    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.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #816
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    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.

  7. #817
    User DannyRux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    10-11-16 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    143

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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?
    Most self-described liberals and progressives aren't nearly as liberal or progressive as they believe themselves to be.

    The single greatest threat to liberty is the collective belief that government grants it.

  8. #818
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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 by Eighty Deuce; 02-16-13 at 05:02 AM.

  9. #819
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

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

    Yet, the knock is always that republicans are the ones responsible for "outsourcing", seems that is yet another bit of projection from the left.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #820
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
    We survived George W., this country can survive anything.
    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 donít 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, theyíll say oh, well, the reason that this or that candidate has problems in the 12th Congressional district is because thereís 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 itís not just that Greece is broke, but itís 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

Posting Permissions

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