• 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!

Transcript: Obama's State Of The Union Address 2014

Look nothing anyone says or no data posted is going to change your mind. You and the 43% that support Obama certainly deserve each other.. I feel bad for someone your age being so poorly informed

I'm informed enough to point out why and how your politics are indefensible.
 
Never said it was, but it was a recession and cost the treasury money and dollars. 9/11 cost the Treasury over a trillion dollars and is included in the 10.6 trillion debt Obama inherited.

All Presidents inherit policies and data that aren't particularly great for the incoming President. A good leader takes the hand they are dealt and plays it better than Obama who lacks leadership skills.

How did 9/11 cost the treasury a trillion dollars? The construction of the replacement has been virtually all on Obama's watch.
 
I was retired. I'm as recession proof as anyone in the country. Tell the auto workers whose jobs Obama saved that the Great Recession was not. Tell Wall St. Tell the 10% who were unemployed that the Great Recession was not. Tell Europe that the Great Recession was not.

Your standard seems to be that if you are ok, everything is fine. That's exactly why conservatives will become unelectable.

You think Obama saved the auto workers? Wow! All he did was continue the bailout from Bush, and destroy shareholder value to payback union cronies. Wall st. is artifically proped up by fiat currency, so ofcourse they love it. Take that fake money away and see what happens. Real unemployment today is worse than when Obama got in, but you aren't being told the real story. As for Europe, they control their own markets.
 
You think Obama saved the auto workers? Wow! All he did was continue the bailout from Bush, and destroy shareholder value to payback union cronies. Wall st. is artifically proped up by fiat currency, so ofcourse they love it. Take that fake money away and see what happens. Real unemployment today is worse than when Obama got in, but you aren't being told the real story. As for Europe, they control their own markets.

" You think Obama saved the auto workers?"

Of course he did. There's no argument to the contrary and yours, that someone had to loose for that win to happen is irrelevant.
 
" You think Obama saved the auto workers?"

Of course he did. There's no argument to the contrary and yours, that someone had to loose for that win to happen is irrelevant.

The tax payer lost and all the shareholders lost and you call that saving an auto maker. I don't. Did Obama save Solyndra? No, once again tax payers lost. Under Obama the tax payer has lost repeatedly. And under Obamacare the entire country is losing.
 
I was retired. I'm as recession proof as anyone in the country. Tell the auto workers whose jobs Obama saved that the Great Recession was not. Tell Wall St. Tell the 10% who were unemployed that the Great Recession was not. Tell Europe that the Great Recession was not.

Your standard seems to be that if you are ok, everything is fine. That's exactly why conservatives will become unelectable.


Tell that to the bond holders and the taxpayers who lost billions? You buy what you are told and ignore the actual data and facts. Chrysler is now an Italian firm, I am sure that makes you happy. It isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout any private sector business. I would expect someone of your age to understand that
 
The tax payer lost and all the shareholders lost and you call that saving an auto maker. I don't. Did Obama save Solyndra? No, once again tax payers lost. Under Obama the tax payer has lost repeatedly. And under Obamacare the entire country is losing.

If you see no difference between Solyndra and General Motors your confusion is explained.
 
Tell that to the bond holders and the taxpayers who lost billions? You buy what you are told and ignore the actual data and facts. Chrysler is now an Italian firm, I am sure that makes you happy. It isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout any private sector business. I would expect someone of your age to understand that

It's also not the role of government to sink companies as Bush did.

BTW, why do wing nuts believe that God gave only them insight into what government, or any other organization, is "supposed" to do?
 
It's also not the role of government to sink companies as Bush did.

BTW, why do wing nuts believe that God gave only them insight into what government, or any other organization, is "supposed" to do?

Spoken like a true big govt. liberal who has no problem with a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. yet has the gall to call conservatives greedy. We have a govt. created with three equal branches not an imperial Presidency. What gave conservatives the insight into what govt. is supposed to do is basic history and civics, something you ought to learn. Our Founders believed in a limited central govt. with power closest to the people.

GW Bush didn't sink companies but it does appear that brainwashing works. You buy what you are told all nothing more than a diversion from the growth and expansion of the Federal Govt. by liberals.

Now tell me what gives liberals the right to pick winners and losers and tell a private business what to pay its workers?
 
Spoken like a true big govt. liberal who has no problem with a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. yet has the gall to call conservatives greedy. We have a govt. created with three equal branches not an imperial Presidency. What gave conservatives the insight into what govt. is supposed to do is basic history and civics, something you ought to learn. Our Founders believed in a limited central govt. with power closest to the people.

GW Bush didn't sink companies but it does appear that brainwashing works. You buy what you are told all nothing more than a diversion from the growth and expansion of the Federal Govt. by liberals.

Now tell me what gives liberals the right to pick winners and losers and tell a private business what to pay its workers?

Consider that in government, just as in business, the expense and revenue sides are entirely different ball games, that must come together in the end only.

In government the expense ledger is a prioritized list of goods and services to and for citizens, considering both the long and short term, and the resources required. Time and circumstances constantly change the context for the services, so frequent re-evaluation is required.

Certainly infrastructure goods are long term investments for citizens.

In a perfect world, the list of potential goods and services would be infinitely long, requiring a cut off point to be determined by revenue and cost/benefit.

The revenue sides must consider potential sources, and the value received by citizens compared to other uses for the resources consumed.

When all of the planning is done, the expense list gets truncated at the "affordable" point.

Of course another consideration is whether to finance from only currently available sources or take on debt. If there are long term beneficial "projects", below the line of what is "affordable", but more valuable than the cost of borrowing, not borrowing would be fiscally irresponsible.

Of course the vast majority of possible goods and services to/for citizens do not benefit everyone equally.

Thus politics. Refereeing everyone's special interests and determining the "greater" good.
 
Consider that in government, just as in business, the expense and revenue sides are entirely different ball games, that must come together in the end only.

In government the expense ledger is a prioritized list of goods and services to and for citizens, considering both the long and short term, and the resources required. Time and circumstances constantly change the context for the services, so frequent re-evaluation is required.

Certainly infrastructure goods are long term investments for citizens.

In a perfect world, the list of potential goods and services would be infinitely long, requiring a cut off point to be determined by revenue and cost/benefit.

The revenue sides must consider potential sources, and the value received by citizens compared to other uses for the resources consumed.

When all of the planning is done, the expense list gets truncated at the "affordable" point.

Of course another consideration is whether to finance from only currently available sources or take on debt. If there are long term beneficial "projects", below the line of what is "affordable", but more valuable than the cost of borrowing, not borrowing would be fiscally irresponsible.

Of course the vast majority of possible goods and services to/for citizens do not benefit everyone equally.

Thus politics. Refereeing everyone's special interests and determining the "greater" good.

Doesn't appear that you have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. which provide security for its people and PROMOTE, not provide for domestic welfare. IF there isn't the revenue necessary for social engineering then don't do it or put it where it belongs at the state and local levels. That is the role of the state and local govt. not a bureaucrat in D.C. who you seem to believe understands your local community problems better than anyone else.

The greater good is determined by the people at the state and local level, not the Federal Govt. Obamacare is an example of overreach. Uninsured expenses are borne by the people of the state and local communities not the Federal taxpayer. It isn't the role of the Federal Taxpayer to fund social programs

This country was built on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It was built on a small central govt, not a massive 3.77 trillion dollar one. It wasn't built to provide national health insurance for its people nor for saving people for their own poor choices. You made a mistake growing up, who bailed you out, a federal bureaucrat?

We live in a country that was built on risk and opportunity. Liberals now want to remove the risk and create equal outcome. All the while the printing presses keep running and people like you give the govt. a pass.
 
Au contraire... I'm not sure what country you have been living in or what you have been studying, but the Imperial Presidency has been the dominate view of the US Presidency for the past 100 years. Presidential power has been growing and growing through FDR, Nixon, Reagan and Bush, Jr.

The Imperial Presidency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MARSHALL.pdf
The Imperial Presidency: Jr. Arthur M. Schlesinger: 9780618420018: Amazon.com: Books

Obama actually represents a retreat from that... not of his doing, its just congress has pretty much neutralized him.

State of the Union: platitudes of a post-imperial presidency | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | theguardian.com

And this latest bout of power by executive order is making it worse (Bush and Obama). That's not how the founders intended it to be. That's not how the law is written. Policy is made by law, and congress holds the legislative power. Executive power is the power to execute the laws, not make them or make them up. I don't remember Bush saying 'if congress wont act, I will'. Thus Obama expressing this philosophy and then acting on it, is redefining.
 
Doesn't appear that you have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. which provide security for its people and PROMOTE, not provide for domestic welfare. IF there isn't the revenue necessary for social engineering then don't do it or put it where it belongs at the state and local levels. That is the role of the state and local govt. not a bureaucrat in D.C. who you seem to believe understands your local community problems better than anyone else.

The greater good is determined by the people at the state and local level, not the Federal Govt. Obamacare is an example of overreach. Uninsured expenses are borne by the people of the state and local communities not the Federal taxpayer. It isn't the role of the Federal Taxpayer to fund social programs

This country was built on equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It was built on a small central govt, not a massive 3.77 trillion dollar one. It wasn't built to provide national health insurance for its people nor for saving people for their own poor choices. You made a mistake growing up, who bailed you out, a federal bureaucrat?

We live in a country that was built on risk and opportunity. Liberals now want to remove the risk and create equal outcome. All the while the printing presses keep running and people like you give the govt. a pass.

Is this another revelation of what God told you that you are entitled to?

He lied. You are entitled to nothing.
 
And this latest bout of power by executive order is making it worse (Bush and Obama). That's not how the founders intended it to be. That's not how the law is written. Policy is made by law, and congress holds the legislative power. Executive power is the power to execute the laws, not make them or make them up. I don't remember Bush saying 'if congress wont act, I will'. Thus Obama expressing this philosophy and then acting on it, is redefining.

Why do you assume that anybody, much less our President, needs lessons from you on anything?
 
Doesn't appear that you have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. which provide security for its people and PROMOTE, not provide for domestic welfare.
a bit full of yourself aren't you
especially considering the ignorant tripe which was the remainder of your post
so, share with us what the government is doing which is NOT found to be promoting the domestic welfare
and i really look forward to a specific reply to that question and not another nonsensical rant

IF there isn't the revenue necessary for social engineering then don't do it ...
i see that you are a true neoconservative, who follows the party's 'starve the beast' philosophy: spend all the revenues so that there is nothing remaining for a social safety net
the compassionate conservatism we have come to know and love sarcasm.gif

... or put it where it belongs at the state and local levels. That is the role of the state and local govt. not a bureaucrat in D.C. who you seem to believe understands your local community problems better than anyone else.
explain for us why the social safety net needs to be constructed only at the state and local level, rather than by the federal government

The greater good is determined by the people at the state and local level, not the Federal Govt.
why is it that you believe those state and local officials have a better feel for the 'greater good', than a federal official

Obamacare is an example of overreach. Uninsured expenses are borne by the people of the state and local communities not the Federal taxpayer.
why? i live on the border of two states. if the adjoining state offers more than my state of residence and i seek local medical assistance from the adjoining state, aren't i then exploiting the taxpayers of that adjoining state?

It isn't the role of the Federal Taxpayer to fund social programs
not even to 'promote the general welfare'? are you saying we should disregard the preamble?

This country was built on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
who do you see posting an expectation for an equal outcome for all ... if you are unable to show us such posts then you are crafting a bogus issue to argue against

It was built on a small central govt, not a massive 3.77 trillion dollar one.
says what? any portion of that budget appropriated in an unConstitutional manner? if so, show us. if you cannot show us, then you are making **** up again to have something to rant about

It wasn't built to provide national health insurance for its people ...
you do know that the supreme court of the United States of America has made a ruling that says your argument is full of crap ... don't you?

... nor for saving people for their own poor choices.
what poor choices is the federal government saving people from?
please list them and the people who are so unConstitutionally assisted; please be specific [NO rants]

You made a mistake growing up, who bailed you out, a federal bureaucrat?
yep. but then my father was a federal employee. does that mean he did something wrong?
if you were trying to make a point with that statement, you failed. but you are more than welcome to try again to explain what you wanted us to read and understand

We live in a country that was built on risk and opportunity.
would you please point to a country, any country, where its people do NOT live in an environment where there is risk and opportunity

Liberals now want to remove the risk and create equal outcome.
again, you are just making stuff up. i see no one arguing for equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities. but if i missed such a post - or posts - please point them out and i will join your rant against any citizen who expresses an expectation that the federal government should assure equal outcomes for all

All the while the printing presses keep running and people like you give the govt. a pass.
i did not receive such a pass
where does one go to get one
please share the details
 
justabubba;1062873544]a bit full of yourself aren't you
especially considering the ignorant tripe which was the remainder of your post
so, share with us what the government is doing which is NOT found to be promoting the domestic welfare
and i really look forward to a specific reply to that question and not another nonsensical rant

Obamacare, the stimulus, green energy, taking over GM/Chrysler, class warfare


i see that you are a true neoconservative, who follows the party's 'starve the beast' philosophy: spend all the revenues so that there is nothing remaining for a social safety net
the compassionate conservatism we have come to know and love View attachment 67161286

Social safety net is the responsibility of the people who foot the bills, the state and local government. This country was built on neighbor helping neighbor and that neighbor isn't a federal bureaucrat

evel, rather than by the federal government


Closer to the people where it belongs

why is it that you believe those state and local officials have a better feel for the 'greater good', than a federal official

Closer to the people where it belongs and more in tune with the will of the citizens and electorate. Only a true big govt liberal believes a federal bureaucrat is better at solving state and local problems. TX is proving you and your ilk wrong


why? i live on the border of two states. if the adjoining state offers more than my state of residence and i seek local medical assistance from the adjoining state, aren't i then exploiting the taxpayers of that adjoining state?

Your state has the same opportunity as any others. If your state screws up quit looking to the Federal govt. to force the national will on the citizens


not even to 'promote the general welfare'? are you saying we should disregard the preamble?

Promote to you seems to mean provide and that is how we got a 3.77 trillion dollar govt


who do you see posting an expectation for an equal outcome for all ... if you are unable to show us such posts then you are crafting a bogus issue to argue against

Do you pay any real attention to Obama speeches? It never is someone else's responsibility for their own failures. millions of long term unemployed says it all


says what? any portion of that budget appropriated in an unConstitutional manner? if so, show us. if you cannot show us, then you are making **** up again to have something to rant about

Who said it was appropriated in an unconstitutional manner. Now you are making things up. Please explain to me why we need a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. and 50 independent states? You have no concept of what you are promoting

you do know that the supreme court of the United States of America has made a ruling that says your argument is full of crap ... don't you?


That is your opinion and have no concept as to the ruling of the SC

what poor choices is the federal government saving people from?
please list them and the people who are so unConstitutionally assisted; please be specific [NO rants]

The right to succeed or fail, the right to choose healthcare or not, the right to earn as much as they are capable of earning and to provide for their own family vs. having the Federal bureaucrats do it. Obamacare is a failed social engineering program forced on the people the majority of who don't want it


yep. but then my father was a federal employee. does that mean he did something wrong?
if you were trying to make a point with that statement, you failed. but you are more than welcome to try again to explain what you wanted us to read and understand

Nope, your father made his choice and you lived with it. Whose responsibility was it for making that choice? Equal opportunity to make that choice is what this country was built on, now all I see is jealousy from you because others have more and make more. You don't see conservatives complaining about what someone else makes or has


would you please point to a country, any country, where its people do NOT live in an environment where there is risk and opportunity

Socialist and communist countries, you know, the economy you are promoting for us

again, you are just making stuff up. i see no one arguing for equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities. but if i missed such a post - or posts - please point them out and i will join your rant against any citizen who expresses an expectation that the federal government should assure equal outcomes for all

You have very selective reading and comprehension skills as well as a very poor understanding of civics and economics


i did not receive such a pass
where does one go to get one
please share the details

Stop blaming someone else for your poor choices and failures
 
Obamacare, the stimulus, green energy, taking over GM/Chrysler, class warfare




Social safety net is the responsibility of the people who foot the bills, the state and local government. This country was built on neighbor helping neighbor and that neighbor isn't a federal bureaucrat




Closer to the people where it belongs



Closer to the people where it belongs and more in tune with the will of the citizens and electorate. Only a true big govt liberal believes a federal bureaucrat is better at solving state and local problems. TX is proving you and your ilk wrong




Your state has the same opportunity as any others. If your state screws up quit looking to the Federal govt. to force the national will on the citizens




Promote to you seems to mean provide and that is how we got a 3.77 trillion dollar govt




Do you pay any real attention to Obama speeches? It never is someone else's responsibility for their own failures. millions of long term unemployed says it all




Who said it was appropriated in an unconstitutional manner. Now you are making things up. Please explain to me why we need a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. and 50 independent states? You have no concept of what you are promoting




That is your opinion and have no concept as to the ruling of the SC



The right to succeed or fail, the right to choose healthcare or not, the right to earn as much as they are capable of earning and to provide for their own family vs. having the Federal bureaucrats do it. Obamacare is a failed social engineering program forced on the people the majority of who don't want it




Nope, your father made his choice and you lived with it. Whose responsibility was it for making that choice? Equal opportunity to make that choice is what this country was built on, now all I see is jealousy from you because others have more and make more. You don't see conservatives complaining about what someone else makes or has




Socialist and communist countries, you know, the economy you are promoting for us



You have very selective reading and comprehension skills as well as a very poor understanding of civics and economics




Stop blaming someone else for your poor choices and failures

Why would someone who believes as you do choose to live here? I just don't understand
 
Why would someone who believes as you do choose to live here? I just don't understand

I think that question more aptly applies to you. Conservative's views more closely resemble the founding principles of this country.
 
Why would someone who believes as you do choose to live here? I just don't understand


I live in TX, the number one Red state, best move I ever made in 1992. I always took personal responsibility for my own choices and my own mistakes. Too bad others never took that responsibility and now expect the govt. to bail them out for poor choices, whether it be dead end jobs, health insurance, wages making personal responsibility a lost trait for far too many.
 
Pero, do you agree with the numbers cited in the Gallup poll? Some, such as immigration, seem a little bit out of line to me. And why does Obama want to use bonds for his MyRa? Smart investors are getting out of bonds, from what I've read. Aren't other countries not buying what they used to? Maybe not, since they are getting anxious about our inability to cut spending.

I haven't read three specifics concerning the myRA program, but I can understand why a long-term retirement program would be backed by gov't bonds. Treasury bonds are still considered secure, long term investments backed by "the full faith and credit of the U.S. (Treasury)". The only way that faith is shaken is if Congress violates their oath to Art. 1, Section 8 to the Constitution. Yes, I realize this applies moreso to our ability to borrow money from foreign gov'ts, but anything Congress does to shake "investor confidance" can have an adverse affect on our free market ecomony.

There's also the potential to transfers of our long-term debt obligations from "foreign" investers to "domestic" investors. More specifically, such a program could mean more of this nation's citizens are able to participate in the prosperity of this nation in a way many can't today. Old course, the FedResv would have to raise interest rates to make bonds far more attractive than they are now, but such a domestic program could be attractive to a new breed of investors much as war bonds did for the Greatest Generation.
 
Well there you have it, we are living in great economic times with excellent economic results. The BEA,BLS, and Treasury numbers lie. Please post for me the location that captures saved jobs? States weren't even given the opportunity to save their own state jobs but you willing give Obama credit. Such low standards you have

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama's Stimulus Law - US News

How the $800B stimulus failed | New York Post

The BEA,BLS numbers do not lie. However, in holding those up against the prevailing wisdom of three dozen of our nation's foremost economists you are boldly declaring that what makes a stimulus work is defined by you.... You are entitled to your opinion, but the challenge to Kobie was as to his basis for saying it did work. In that regard, I gave you overwhelming support for the proposition that the stimulus worked.

Bear in mind that the stimulus had two essential functions: 1) to stop the downward spiral and 2) to lay the ground work for the economy to rebuild. A stimulus does not, in and of itself, return an economy to prosperity. You are hung up on the fact that the economy is not prosperous. Well, in many respects it is... but we achieved an uneven recovery (proving that a "rising tide does not life all boats; only the yachts"). That is another debate.

I challenged you to defend you claim that it did not. You did produce some evidence to support your opinion. Thank you, you are miles ahead of your conservative peers in being able to defend you position.... I do respect that you bring facts to the equation (I just quibble with how you chose to interpret the facts, but at least you bring them)......

I present 9 studies, a University of Chicago poll of more than three dozen of the nations top economists and a CBO report. All of this work by economists, You counter with a US News article by Reince Priebus (who offers point number 5 for why the stimulus failed was that we do not have 5 million electric cars on the road... really?) and an opinion piece in the New York Post. OK, so you have produced other lay people that are writing their politics, not economics. While I agree with many of the points of the Post article, it doesn't say the stimulus failed, it says money was distributed wrong...

Anyway, I like my experts over you politicians. I'll put a point in my column on this one. :)
 
Last edited:
I think that question more aptly applies to you. Conservative's views more closely resemble the founding principles of this country.

You mean the principles that we, the people, amended our way away from like plutocracy and slavery?
 
Back
Top Bottom