• 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]

Oh this is good. The wars were off the books and you had no idea of what the debt was until Obama put it back on the books, and then you screamed like wounded badgers over that debt and accused Obama of massive debt. Now you want to tell us that the debt was charged to the Bush admin??? Yeah, now it is. But only because it's been pointed out to you. Very disingenuous of you. You weren't even aware of it, or you'd have screamed your head off during the last decade. All we heard were crickets. Now you have a problem with it? What would you say if Obama took the wars off the books? That's a good way of reducing the deficit isn't it??:roll:

It really is sad that you are so committed to liberalism that you cannot admit you are wrong. Being off budget doesn't mean it isn't included in the debt. You simply have no idea what a fool liberalism is making out of you.
 
So are you telling me that the cost of the wars aren't included in the debt charged to Bush and would you like to make a wager on it?

They are now. They weren't before and you know that. They were off the books and not included in our budget or deficit. Now they are.
 
They are now. They weren't before and you know that. They were off the books and not included in our budget or deficit. Now they are.

Kid, because they weren't on budget doesn't mean they weren't charged against the debt. Any money spent during the fiscal year is charged against the deficit/surplus. You simply have been brainwashed by a failed ideology. Please learn about the debt and deficits and on budget and off budget expenses so you stop making a fool out of yourself.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The Dow is not directly the result of just American labor. Look at how Walmart stock dropped on the leaked memo about sales being down. Did the workers work in less hard to cause that? If the answer is no, then how can you maintain that the workers alone caused what the price was before the drop?

While the minimum wage should be raised, the argument does not reside in "productivity".

Nobody is saying that the Dow was only connected to American workers, nor that workers cause prices to rise or drop. This is a StrawMan. However the Dow does indicate profits made by US corporations and the productivity of those companies is undeniable. People are working longer hours and getting less in wages. That's simply wrong and should be addressed. Left to their own devices I don't see any resolve on the part of corporations to deal with that. Costco pays all their people 11/hr. They retain their people. It's a good environment. The CEA makes $500,000. Obviously he could take a lot more, but he doesn't.
 
Yeah. Actually it does take some skill to address what another poster writes. I
would think a guy with a "near 140 IQ" would already know that and put that lofty IQ to use. But no...you're only motivated by a "slap down". Your entire approach to debating is dicto simpliciter. One sweeping generality after another. And then it's followed by the predictable insult. But then, logic isn't your game. Sad waste of that high IQ.:roll:

No Jethro it doesn't. It takes an adherance to fundamental character traits and the abillity to objectively see through the rhetoric of politicians and their supporters and find the truth.

If you don't want to battle and want to stay exclusivley on topic then stop with veiled insinuations and direct attacks on peoples intelligence because if you do it to me I'm firing right back and I have plenty of ammunition.

As for your arguments if I see youv'e said something incorrect, lied, made generalizations , inconsistent statements or just parroted nonsensical talking points I'm going to call you out on it.

Its the point of the Site " debate politics ". If you want to make it personal then that's up to you.

But about that post I wrote. Long wasn't it ? And all kinds of awesome.

But apparently I posted in the wrong thread according to obvious.

Hell it was 1 am and I was on my 7th drink so hey, even I make the occasional mistake.

You Libs have made a curious choice, to defend the undefendable in the midst of a failing Presidency. But it's getting old as you rely on the one and most pathetic excuse time and time again to mitigate the suffering of the American middle Class.

So, you continue with your " Bush blame " andb I'll continue to expose your desperation.
 
Nobody is saying that the Dow was only
connected to American workers, nor
that workers cause prices to rise or drop. This is a StrawMan. However the Dow does indicate profits made by US corporations and the productivity of those companies is undeniable. People are working longer hours and getting less in wages. That's simply wrong and should be addressed. Left to their own devices I don't see any resolve on the part of corporations to deal with that. Costco pays all their people 11/hr. They retain their people. It's a good environment. The CEA makes $500,000. Obviously he could take a lot more, but he doesn't.

The only thing the Dows indicative of is the 85 billion dollars a in Fed injections. If you want to isolate your argument by focusing on those "eebil corporations " then it's on you if someone calls you out for being one dimensional.

Take away the Feds pumping and the DOW will drop like a rock as bond interest climbs and people bail into metals.

Wait people are doing that already.
 
Last edited:
Re: SOTU Address:

There is no benefit to the federal minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are meant for young teenagers... not for adults. Raising the minimum wage has shifted this, leaving the youth out of jobs because now they are competing with people who think the small sum is worth something to their families.

Seriously, what has the government done right. I challenge you to come up with an example.

How old are you? Do you realize how teenagers treat their money? They don't save! They spend it! They spend their money on everything from fast-food to movie and concert tickets to clothes to the latest gagets like cellphones and ipads to jewelry or a few dollars here and there on gas either in their car, their parent's car or their friend's car. Teenagers spend (or should I say "waste") alot of money. The smart ones save and prepare themselves for bigger and better things, but make no mistake. Teenagers do spend money - lots of it.

Republicans, of course, are trying real hard to once again confuse and convolute the issue here. You've once again turned another issue, i.e., raising the minimum wage, from "how it would impact business growth and expansion" to "teenagers, low-skilled workers aren't heads of household and therefore don't increase the level household incomes" without realizing that many of these low-skilled workers ARE single-parents and therefore ARE heads of their household or hard working college students trying desperately to make ends meet while they work full time while also holding down and full class load.

Again, the Party needs to stop being stupid and starting thinking beyond its Party ideology.
 
That's absolutely false.

Was your reply to:
That argument only "works" if you discount the fact that Obama added $787 billion ARRA spending, authorized in February 2009.

Put down the Koolaid and see these links:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money


??? So what? Did you expect Bush to do it?



No. I'm afraid it isn't. Every president is going to inherit the spending of the guy that preceded him. Whoever succeeds Obama will inherit what he left. It's neither insane nor dishonest as Politifact points out. I know conservatives don't like Fact checkers...they have an aversion to facts, as we heard in the last election.



That's a good idea. Lets keep it real. Who was president from 07/8? That spending carried over into 08/9 from the Bush years. It was still the Bush economy. We were still under the Bush Tax cuts. We were still involved in Bush's wars. That spending rate has not increased under Obama as you've just pointed out. The rate of spending has actually slowed.[/QUOTE]
 
How old are you? Do you realize how teenagers treat
their money? They don't save! They spend it! They spend their money on everything from fast-food to movie and concert tickets to clothes to the latest gagets like cellphones and ipads to jewelry or a few dollars here and there on gas either in their car, their parent's car or their friend's car. Teenagers spend (or should I say "waste") alot of money. The smart ones save and prepare themselves for bigger and better things, but make no mistake. Teenagers do spend money - lots of it.

Republicans, of course, are trying real hard to once again confuse and convolute the issue here. You've once again turned another issue, i.e., raising the minimum wage, from "how it would impact business growth and expansion" to "teenagers, low-skilled workers aren't heads of household and therefore don't increase the level household incomes" without realizing that many of these low-skilled workers ARE single-parents and therefore ARE heads of their household or hard working college students trying desperately to make ends meet while they work full time while also holding down and full class load.

Again, the Party needs to stop being stupid and starting thinking beyond its Party ideology.

And arbitrarily agree to the policies that have gotten us to a 16 trillion dollar debt, Trillion dollar defecits and a shrinking economy ?

That doesn't sound " objective" to me.

But Iv'e noticed a trend with some of these "objective" posters.

They've come in with names like "truth finder", "Mr Objective", " Dr Fact" or " Moderate Man" and make some of the most hack worthy partisan nonsensical post to date.

Like the libs who set up the " politifact" and "Z~Facts" websites and just basically push the progressive twisted partisan rhetoric rather than.the truth....or the facts.

Connection or not the endresult is in order to get your word out your using underhanded and lowlife tactics in the attempt to fool low information voters.

Its why their ideology will eventually colllapse under the weight of its own corrupt methodology. That your110 % effort is still essentially based on a lie is indication enough that your in desperation mode.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Productivity is at it's highest rate in years. American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609. U.S. Workers World's Most Productive - CBS News

In short, productivity has increased far beyond wages. Profits are up, and corporations are making more money than ever. Wages however are stagnant.



Clearly if that were true, the standard of living for everyone would be up. It isn't. Why not?



That's simply not true. They're producing more and getting paid less. The U.S. employee put in an average 1,804 hours of work in 2006, the report said. That compared with 1,407.1 hours for the Norwegian worker, and 1,564.4 for the French. The fact is that corporate profits have soared. The Dow is around 14,000. The reason for extremely high profits is cheap labor. In other words, it's simply greed.

There are so many holes in your theory, it's hard to know where to begin. We should start with the understanding that it's theory. Not science. It's not demonstrably true. We can also say that you're simply making an argument for keeping wages low. Why you want to keep people from raising their standard of living is beyond me, but that's what the entire argument is centered on. High profitablity for the company at the expense of the worker. What it really boils down to is the amount of profit a company accepts as opposed to how much can they wring out of their employees. If they accepted slightely less to cover a higher wage for the employee what do they gain? For one thing they probably gain a more loyal workforce and reduced turnover. The longer they keep employees the higher their skills become, which makes them even more productive. An experienced worker is going to be more productive than a newbie. They're capable of producing more in less time. Another benifit is that with higher wages the employee has more money at his disposal which also translates into greater purchasing power. He'll buy a new appliance, or a car, or a home. He'll inject more money into the local ecomomy. With this additional purchasing power, other business benefit by selling more goods because of the higher demand for what they sell. That demand puts a strain on other businesses to meet the demand which they can do through hiring more people to keep up with that demand. The consumer always drives job creation. When there is a demand for goods and services, a company will hire people. No company hires a person without that demand. If they did, they'd be laying people off right away or go broke. It takes customers coming through the doors to sell the product. More money in peoples pocket, more spending of that money and more people hired to meet that demand. In the end, the effect of lowering the profit margin is offset through higher volume of goods sold. The company may make less per unit, but they offset that by selling more units of what they offer. It has to do with profit margin.

Our standard of living is far higher than the Europeans for chrissakes. We have bigger homes, more TV's, and are fatter.

As already noted, our productivity per dollar of labor cost is being outdone by other countries who export to us.

Also, as has been noted, the majority of these minimum wage jobs are not with the mega corporations stateside. Its in fast food and simple retail. OBTW, the consumer does NOT DRIVE JOB CREATION. The one who provides the product that the consumer wants does that. The one who takes the risk to create new and better products and services does that.

Otherwise, your "logic" is so convoluted it is as a bad joke. Increasing wages without an increase in relative productivity is nothing more than redistribution, from those who are more productive, to those who are less.
 
They are now. They weren't before and you know that. They were off the books and not included in our budget or deficit. Now they are.

As already noted, they were included in the debt every year. Not any different than Clinton's "surplus" not being a surplus when one looks at the actual debt by year.

Obama has now increased the debt more in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And he sure as **** ain't done, now is he ?
 
As already noted, they were included in the debt every year. Not any different than Clinton's "surplus" not being a surplus when one looks at the actual debt by year.

Obama has now increased the debt more in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And he sure as **** ain't done, now is he ?

Makes you wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that allows people to ignore reality and buy leftwing right. Most don't have a clue as to what on budget and off budget means and that both make up the yearly deficit that is added to the debt. Far too many liberals simply cannot accept the fact that the liberal elite and media lie to them daily and even when proven wrong they continue to perpetuate the lies.
 
It really is sad that you are so committed to liberalism that you cannot admit you are wrong. Being off budget doesn't mean it isn't included in the debt. You simply have no idea what a fool liberalism is making out of you.

Of course it's included in the debt. NOW! But it was not factored into that our budget deficit until it was put back on the books. If you weren't so committed to your ideology then you'd be able to understand that.

View attachment 67142793

Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card. Obama instantly included the money spent on the wars into the debt count, thus increasing it dramatically.

Not only that but Obama retroactively took debt from 2001-2007 from the wars that was never counted in the Bush years and ADDED it to his balance.
 
Of course it's included in the debt. NOW! But it was not factored into that our budget deficit until it was put back on the books. If you weren't so committed to your ideology then you'd be able to understand that.

View attachment 67142793

Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card. Obama instantly included the money spent on the wars into the debt count, thus increasing it dramatically.

Not only that but Obama retroactively took debt from 2001-2007 from the wars that was never counted in the Bush years and ADDED it to his balance.

Would you show us the last time the debt of the Nation was actually decreased? HINT: You'll need to go back more than 50 years...
 
Of course it's included in the debt. NOW! But it was not factored into that our budget deficit until it was put back on the books. If you weren't so committed to your ideology then you'd be able to understand that.

View attachment 67142793

Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card. Obama instantly included the money spent on the wars into the debt count, thus increasing it dramatically.

Not only that but Obama retroactively took debt from 2001-2007 from the wars that was never counted in the Bush years and ADDED it to his balance.

You have no idea what you are talking about and have no concept of debt or deficits. It is tough dealing with kids so brainwashed that they cannot admit when wrong. The money that was spent off budget is still part of the deficit for the year it occurred and always have been. You really need to do better research and stop buying what Obama and his surrogates tell you.

Further you really need to straighten out the bank account of the United States because that doesn't show a surplus. It was a projected surplus that the CBO projected based upon assumptions, assumptions that ignored the Clinton recession and of course had no idea we would have 9/11 which the GAO says cost over a trillion dollars.

Obama retroactively did nothing to the debt which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about which makes you a typical Obama supporter.
 
Of course it's included in the debt. NOW! But it was not factored into that our budget deficit until it was put back on the books. If you weren't so committed to your ideology then you'd be able to understand that.

View attachment 67142793

Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card. Obama instantly included the money spent on the wars into the debt count, thus increasing it dramatically.

Not only that but Obama retroactively took debt from 2001-2007 from the wars that was never counted in the Bush years and ADDED it to his balance.

Do you realize you are arguing against the Bush not-included-in-the-deficit spending, but was included in the debt, while then argung for Clinton doing the exact same thing ?

Stop being so liberal ! LOL ... priceless !
 
Of course it's included in the debt. NOW! But it was not factored into that our
budget deficit until it was put back on the books. If you weren't so committed to your ideology then you'd be able to understand that.

View attachment 67142793

Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card. Obama instantly included the money spent on the wars into the debt count, thus increasing it dramatically.

Not only that but Obama retroactively took debt from 2001-2007 from the wars that was never counted in the Bush years and ADDED it to his balance.

Wall Street Bail out ? You mean TARP ?

Obama voted for TARP. And he should have. It was to bailout Investment banks who bought bundled toxic mortgages from the GSEs...

The Democrat subprime mandated bubble is what initiated the 2008 Collapse and is what you people call "the Bush Meltdown".

Basically your response to a collapsing economy that was mandated by Democrat policies that gave CRA and HUD regulatory control over lending institutions and the GSEs and 8 years of calling Bush every name under the sun including "idiot" and incompetent was to elect an actual incompetent.

And now you feel the need publicly to mitigate the disasterous effects of the incompetent you and people like you elected.

Failure followed by really dumb decisions followed by lies and blame.

That sums up the last 20 years of Democrat activity. Its quite the pedigree.
 
Wall Street Bail out ? You mean TARP ?

Obama voted for TARP. And he should have. It was to bailout Investment banks who bought bundled toxic mortgages from the GSEs...

The Democrat subprime mandated bubble is what initiated the 2008 Collapse and is what you people call "the Bush Meltdown".

Basically your response to a collapsing economy that was mandated by Democrat policies that gave CRA and HUD regulatory control over lending institutions and the GSEs and 8 years of calling Bush every name under the sun including "idiot" and incompetent was to elect an actual incompetent.

And now you feel the need publicly to mitigate the disasterous effects of the incompetent you and people like you elected.

Failure followed by really dumb decisions followed by lies and blame.

That sums up the last 20 years of Democrat activity. Its quite the pedigree.

TARP was a loan that mostly was paid back, wonder where that payback went? I am sure Obama used it to pay down that Bush debt, didn't he?
 
TARP was a loan that mostly was paid back, wonder where that payback
went? I am sure Obama used it to pay down that Bush debt, didn't he?

Remember when Obama.went around crying about the debt he inherited and people like adagio got all goose~bumpy and spread that nonsense all over the internet ?

Without realizing Obama voted for it, the debt that was "inherited" ?

Lol....Liberals. They might have a chance if only the other half of the Country was as susceptible to the Progressive Cancer as they were.

It's why they're on the defensive, they convinced enough people but now those people are getting impatient and they're realizing that they were sold a bill of goods.

Its the old bait and switch from the snake oil salesman Obama.

They can't say we didn't try to warn them.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

In my comment, I did acknowledge the fact that older people fill positions of minimum wage, because it makes no sense for an employer to pay someone that much with absolutely no skill.

Just how ignorant do you have to be to make a stupid comment like this? Do you really think older people have "absolutely no skill?"

This should disqualify you from calling anyone ignorant for the rest of your life!
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Just how ignorant do you have to be to make a stupid comment like this? Do you really think older people have "absolutely no skill?"

This should disqualify you from calling anyone ignorant for the rest of your life!

Why don't you find out how much an older person who is on SS can earn in another job while collecting SS. Get back to me with the answer.
 
:shock: Well that's going to come as news to a lot of people. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is opposing Hagel as political payback
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, himself a former Republican congressman, was particularly upset with the Senate Republicans’ hold up of Hagel, expressing disbelief at Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) admission on Thursday that he’s opposing Hagel because Hagel broke with the GOP on the Iraq war: “They don’t have a Secretary of Defense running the Pentagon because of a 6 or 7 year old grudge? Really?”:



McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

“The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is,” writes the American Conservative’s Daniel Larison. It’s not just that their opposition is misguided, but they stand to gain nothing from it. No one outside of a small core of hard-liners sympathizes with what Senate Republicans are doing.”



Care to rethink that? :surrender


sigh. At no point did McCain say HE felt that way. He said some of his colleagues did. He didnt go against just Bush he went against his party on a variety of issues. McCain himself deals with that blowback quite often from his decisions.

direct quote:
McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

At NO point does McCain say HE feels that way but he attributes it to his colleagues. But then again McCain has voiced a lot of BS to get headlines in the media. Maybe hes past that, but I wouldnt put money on it.
 
Believe it or not...I got cited for my reponse to all that nonsense. Apparently I was flaming. "This entire post is nothing but baiting. In the future, address the argument rather than the other poster". I've been warned. It came from a conservative moderator. I don't know...maybe she thought I'd posted all that garbage. Go figure. :roll:

Moderator's Warning:
You may NOT discuss Moderation action publicly... only in PM.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Why don't you find out how much an older person who is on SS can earn in another job while collecting SS. Get back to me with the answer.

You asked the question, you answer it, I don't give a ****!
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You asked the question, you answer it, I don't give a ****!



Of course you don't as you are just like all other liberals, giving lip service to what you think is a compassionate position. Raise the minimum wage because it sounds and feels good to you. Fact, you are limited at what you can earn on SS so any minimum wage full time job puts you well over that amount. You really don't care because you have been brainwashed by the liberal ideology.
 
Back
Top Bottom