Page 83 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593133 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1467

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

  1. #821
    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 Eighty Deuce View Post
    Dinner is served.


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

    18379_107684425911207_100000089509898_192186_4795520_n.jpg
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #822
    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 poweRob View Post
    Everyone's lying right?

    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.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  3. #823
    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 poweRob View Post
    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.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #824
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,277

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.

  5. #825
    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 OpportunityCost View Post
    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 nationís economic troubles, senior White House officials say.

    Obamaís 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.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #826
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,277

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

    Yea because Wars have always bankrupted the United States..

    What would you Libbies do with out your scape goat ?

    You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.

    It doesn't explain your presidents failures.

  7. #827
    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 Fenton View Post
    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.

    I don't use talking points junior. I don't need them. I also don't practice hypocrisy. I expose it. And as for insults, I fully admit that I'll use them in response those that are tossed out be people like you. But I don't initiate them. If you have a thin skin you shouldn't be on a poltical forum. If you choose to use ad hominem's as your tactic, it will be responded in ways that even you can understand. I have yet to see a single post by any conservative that held any substance. When I've posted lengthy posts that fully detail a position, I'm accused of writing too much. I should apparently keep short "pithy" responses to engage in stupid moronic name calling crap. And I haven't found any bright people here yet let alone honest. At least not on the right, but that's not unusual. You just responded to this: "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." That is a totally honest assessment of the conservative mind. If you have an issue with what I just said, then defend your position. You don't know why your a conservative. There is no basis to it. And you do use talking points. I was watching a show last night that was a direct echo of the very thing I see right here. If you think I'm being dishonest about that, then show me where I'm wrong. These aren't "talking points". They're my own views on conservatism. There is no basis for it. It's little more than a religious cult. It can't demonstrate what makes it true. It's a baseless ideology that like a religion, invests belief in its own claims as if they were true. You haven't got anybody bright enough to address that, so you reduce yourself to name calling and insult. I doubt you even know the history of conservatism and what it bases itself on.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #828
    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 Fenton View Post
    Yea because Wars have always bankrupted the United States..

    What would you Libbies do with out your scape goat ?

    You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.

    It doesn't explain your presidents failures.

    No. They haven't always bankrupted the United States because we always paid for them. That's why nobody ever went to war and cut taxes. You raise taxes when you go to War. Everyone that ever took their country to war knows that. That's how you pay for it. It's not something that is expected within a budget. All of the talk by wingnuts that spending doesn't work when you're in a recession or depression love to cite the New Deal, while failing to note that the spending in WWII was far greater than anything we'd done before. Unemployment went from 14% in 1940 to 1.9% by 1943. We came out of the war the strongest economy in the world. Hardly bankrupting the country. Spending money worked. You just don't need a war to do it.

    You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.
    Yes you can, and the Bush Admin did exactly that. It doesn't matter who voted for it. They voted to go to war. They didn't vote for creative accounting for that war. That was the Admin that did that.

    It doesn't explain your presidents failures.
    That's because your idea of failure don't demonstrate failure. Failure can only be determined after something has been fully implemented and it takes years to assess whether something worked or didn't. In words that you can understand, the jury is still out. When his work is complete, then you can have your say. Most of the country disagrees with your views now. He was elected with over 50% for only the second time since Eisenhower. Apparently the majority of the electorate sees things differently. I criticized Bush heavily when he was in office and could not understand how anybody could vote for him twice. But they did. Now we can see what the results were. Total FAILURE! What you're doing is criticizing the deficit today without acknowledging the size of the deficit when Obama came in. SURPRISE!!! It's bigger than you thought, and you want to lay that all on him?? I dont' think so.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #829
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    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 ..........
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyRux View Post
    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?
    Glad to see you guys are starting to see things alittle more reasonably. And you're both correct; Apple isn't the best example to use where product mark-up pricing is concerned. However, I used them on the extreme side to illustrate a point which both of you exemplified admirably.

    Production costs isn't the only thing that factors into determing employee salaries. As DannyRux makes clear, there are several components that factor into it. But as he also makes clear companies, particularly large corporations, will make the necessary adjustments. True, it would be more difficult for small companies to adjust, but adjust they will even if it means laying off an employee or two (i.e., last new hire, or under-performing worker), shaving expenditures (i.e., reducing vehicle fleet size) or freezing pay raises or not paying bonuses to name just a few.

    As to the argument concerning the primary bread winner's hourly wages exceeding the $9/hr minimum wage as proposed by the President, I think we all can agree the if you're the primary bread winner in your household and you're only making $9/hr, your "household" will certainly have difficulties "keeping up with the Jones" where today's living standards are concerned. But if one is living within his/her means, $9/hr is a much better starting point than today's $7.25/hr especially considering that many who work at such a low wage level are young/unskilled laborers who are only working on avg. between 28-32 hours a week. A $1.75 pay raise would do wonders for these such folks, many of whom are trying to:

    - strike out on their own and no longer live with mom and dad.
    - afford their own health insurance.
    - afford better living conditions (especially if they are college students).

    I don't think it's asking too much to pay people a wage rate that allows them to afford a half-way decent standard of living especially if such a rate places the employee above the federal poverty level.

  10. #830
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: SOTU Address:

    I just found this article from theHill.com, "Experts debate the benefits of a proposed minimum wage hike," which piggy-backs on my post above concerning who generally hold down minimum wage jobs, "young/unskilled laborers".

    "Putting it into context — those who are trying to support families are not who are making minimum wage.

    ...

    Of all minimum wage workers, 50 percent are under age 25, many work part-time and dominate a handful of occupations including food service, ground maintenance, personal care services and sales and office occupations."

    A minimum wage increase would benefit mostly low- to middle-income families with about 70 percent of them making less than the median income of about $60,000 a year or less.

    Among those that would benefit, more than half (54.2 percent) of families earn less than $40,000 per year, according to Sabadish and Hall.

    The increase would help struggling families "make ends meet in a difficult economic environment" and "it will also spur economic growth," they wrote.

    The proposed minimum wage hike would also help workers across all races and ethnicities — 53.1 percent are white and 25.2 percent are Hispanic.

    The vast majority — 84.1 percent — of those benefiting from the president's plan are at least 20 years old, so that means that less than 16 percent of the workers affected are teenagers.
    The article also made it clear that some employers would have to cut back either in new hires, raises, or employee benefits in order to meet the new mimimum wage standard, if authorized by Congress. However, the overall tenor of the article seems to suggest that the nation's economy overall would benefit for an increase in the mimimum wage.

    Just thought I'd share this article which speaks to both sides of the issue.

Posting Permissions

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