• 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:

Your claim was that oil came from oil companies.

Mine is that oil comes from nations like Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, etc., as well as the United States.........

THAT'S who gets paid for the oil.


In countries where the government controls the oil, yes those countries get a large chunk of that revenue. The US only gets money through taxes from the sale of that oil The companies are making hundreds of billions of dollars in profit.
 
I have heard the phrase "liberish" used in this sense. I think it comes from the notion that if you say a lot of stuff real fast and throw in some catchy phrases, people will miss the fact that the lot of stuff you just said is complete BS. Weird, I know, but we do have the latest election results to testify to its effectiveness on a significant portion of the American public. Thank the schools, who also apparently teach only Keynesian economics, and even that not very well.

Maybe it's just that you aren't smart enough to understand anything. The latest election results actually bear that out. You're completely out of step. You're trying to move backward when the rest of us are moving forward. I'm sure the term "liberish" was coined by a conservatoid, so we shouldn't tax our brain with a "catchy phrase" now should we?
 
Liberish (lib-er-ish)
Noun

The language of liberals. Usually confusing, sometimes dangerous, mostly false.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Absolutely, too bad Obama's idea of tax reform only hits the upper income earns which is nothing more than a drop in the bucket to solve our spending problem promoted by liberalism. How much in Federal Income Taxes do the 22 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers pay?


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?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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? :roll:

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.

unemployment-rate-obama-stimulus.jpg


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.:peace

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.
 
"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
 
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.

unemployment-rate-obama-stimulus.jpg




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.:roll: 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:
"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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom