• 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

You mean the "Holy War" that the Democrat controlled Senate authorized in October 2002 with a 76-23 vote? Or how about implementing the status of forces agreement Bush signed in 2008 ending the Iraq War? Maybe it was the Afghanistan supplementals Obama signed in 2009 expanding the Afghanistan war and adding to the deficits?

What I find quite telling is how many people like you care how much someone else pays in Federal Income Taxes but ignores that 50% of income earning families pay zero. No problem here but if you thing we have a revenue problem why not go after income from all income earning families?

I mean the Holy warS that Cheney and Rumsfeld lied to Congress to sell.
 
You mean the "Holy War" that the Democrat controlled Senate authorized in October 2002 with a 76-23 vote? Or how about implementing the status of forces agreement Bush signed in 2008 ending the Iraq War? Maybe it was the Afghanistan supplementals Obama signed in 2009 expanding the Afghanistan war and adding to the deficits?

What I find quite telling is how many people like you care how much someone else pays in Federal Income Taxes but ignores that 50% of income earning families pay zero. No problem here but if you thing we have a revenue problem why not go after income from all income earning families?

What taxes do you think that you can collect from people who have zero wealth to show from their work? Are you going to charge them in chickens or fruit baskets or their first born sold into slavery?
 
What taxes do you think that you can collect from people who have zero wealth to show from their work? Are you going to charge them in chickens or fruit baskets or their first born sold into slavery?

We aren't talking wealth we are talking personal income. You don't seem to understand the difference. If you earn any income you should pay something in FIT before requiring those who do pay most of the taxes to pay more if your belief is we have a revenue problem
 
We aren't talking wealth we are talking personal income. You don't seem to understand the difference. If you earn any income you should pay something in FIT before requiring those who do pay most of the taxes to pay more if your belief is we have a revenue problem

Their personal income is such that after they pay their bills there is nothing left. So their money is all spoken for.

Are you going to command them to stop paying their bills so that you can add to your wealth?
 
Their personal income is such that after they pay their bills there is nothing left. So their money is all spoken for.

Are you going to command them to stop paying their bills so that you can add to your wealth?

How do you know what their bills are? You are part of the problem not part of the solution as it is never anyone else's fault for their own poor choices and failures.
 
How do you know what their bills are? You are part of the problem not part of the solution as it is never anyone else's fault for their own poor choices and failures.

It's not a blame game. It's reality. Some kids get good parents and some get terrible parents. If we shot everyone who's made a poor choice in life there'd only be you left.
 
It's not a blame game. It's reality. Some kids get good parents and some get terrible parents. If we shot everyone who's made a poor choice in life there'd only be you left.


And that is why we need a 3.77 trillion dollar budget and 17.3 trillion dollar debt? That is liberal logic and what I call spending as much as you want IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION totally ignoring the results. All that debt and we have record numbers dependent on the govt. Sound like a success to you?
 
And that is why we need a 3.77 trillion dollar budget and 17.3 trillion dollar debt? That is liberal logic and what I call spending as much as you want IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION totally ignoring the results. All that debt and we have record numbers dependent on the govt. Sound like a success to you?

It was conservative policy failures that brought on what we are now working our way out of. Successfully, but not instantly, out of.

It turns out that compassion is both ethically and fiscally responsible.
 
It was conservative policy failures that brought on what we are now working our way out of. Successfully, but not instantly, out of.

It turns out that compassion is both ethically and fiscally responsible.

That is your opinion however since Republicans haven't controlled Congress since 2006 your opinion doesn't hold any water.
 
That is your opinion however since Republicans haven't controlled Congress since 2006 your opinion doesn't hold any water.

By 2096, the die was cast. Double holy wars, tax redistribution tax cuts, Greenspan fueling an already over fueled economy, massive bonuses chasing more unqualified home buyers and investors naive enough to expect that Standard and Poor was responsible in labeling home import age backed derivatives,

The cracking of the foundation for the whole house of cards was audible. Within months of the change in Congressional seats the Great Recession rumbled into town.
 
By 2096, the die was cast. Double holy wars, tax redistribution tax cuts, Greenspan fueling an already over fueled economy, massive bonuses chasing more unqualified home buyers and investors naive enough to expect that Standard and Poor was responsible in labeling home import age backed derivatives,

The cracking of the foundation for the whole house of cards was audible. Within months of the change in Congressional seats the Great Recession rumbled into town.

Yet the Conservative principles generated the greatest wealth creation country in the world that you and others want to destroy. You benefited from conservative principles that allowed you to make as much money as you were capable of making and keeping much of it

You use liberal talking points quite well, trouble is you don't understand the data in those talking points because the data makes you look foolish
 
In an effort to get back on track, lets discuss Obama's committent to American energy, so long as its not fossil fuel.

It's not just oil and natural gas production that's booming; we're becoming a global leader in solar, too. Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar; every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can't be outsourced. Let's continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don't need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do.

Ignoring his usual misconception about not taking money being the same as giving someone money, this steering people away from oil, which employs 200k people, generates trillions of dollars in product, and thus hundreds of billions in taxes, is hardly going to be a job creator, which he claims is his main concern. He even says his energy policy is creating jobs, but how many is it costing?

Also

Obama said:
the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact

so STFU
 
Yet the Conservative principles generated the greatest wealth creation country in the world that you and others want to destroy. You benefited from conservative principles that allowed you to make as much money as you were capable of making and keeping much of it

You use liberal talking points quite well, trouble is you don't understand the data in those talking points because the data makes you look foolish

I see that the best that you can do against reality is trash talk.

Did you ever ask yourself why it's essential for you to deny reality in defense of conservatism?
 
I see that the best that you can do against reality is trash talk.

Did you ever ask yourself why it's essential for you to deny reality in defense of conservatism?

I post data, you post opinions, my data is reality, yours is nothing more than liberalism gone wild
 
In an effort to get back on track, lets discuss Obama's committent to American energy, so long as its not fossil fuel.



Ignoring his usual misconception about not taking money being the same as giving someone money, this steering people away from oil, which employs 200k people, generates trillions of dollars in product, and thus hundreds of billions in taxes, is hardly going to be a job creator, which he claims is his main concern. He even says his energy policy is creating jobs, but how many is it costing?

Also



so STFU

Accountants call it cost/benefit. All of the costs and benefits have to be included to make good decisions. There is no doubt that there are some of each.

Those of us who choose to consider all of them in objective analysis have concluded that the lowest cost path forward is to move away from fossil fuels with all deliberate speed. Something that has to be done anyway no matter what good analysis recommends. Our analysis says that sooner is cheaper than later.
 
More good news for Democrats, just think of all the family time people are going to have because they have fewer hours on the job. What an economic boost as well since they will have smaller pay checks although FIT will be much less. Happy Days are here again! Love the liberal spin
 
More good news for Democrats, just think of all the family time people are going to have because they have fewer hours on the job. What an economic boost as well since they will have smaller pay checks although FIT will be much less. Happy Days are here again! Love the liberal spin

I'm sure that this is meaningful to someone. But, not me.
 
Actually, that was my comment originally. The overall topic is basically anything he said. The bigger problem even than the stimulus is the high level of overall spending that was locked in. From 2007-2009 spending when up by 30% and never went back down. So in a way, thats a trillion a year in stimulus, all borrowed. And its both partys fault. Stimulus may have stopped the bleeding (thats debateable, others say it was all the other measures taken prior to Obama by the Fed), but how much damage did it cost long term?

Not much.

A recent report by the CBO, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014-2024" - the same report that Republicans have misquoted concerning future job projections - states that although spending was up from 2007-2009, "the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years, and it is on a path to decline further this year (FY2014)...with a total est. of $514B (compared to $1.4T in 2009)" In fact, one point the CBO consistently points out is that the deficit will remain below the trillion dollar mark until 2022.

Another bright spot the CBO points to is that unemployment is expected to decrease to 5.8% by 2017 and go as low as 5.5% by 2024.

Just a brief FYI for those interested.

Edits = Red
 
Last edited:
Not much.

A recent report by the CBO, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014-2024" - the same report that Republicans have misquoted concerning future job projections - states that although spending was up from 2007-2009, "the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years, and it is on a path to decline further this year (FY2014)...with a total est. of $514B (compared to $1.4T in 2009)" In fact, one point the CBO consistently points out is that the deficit will remain below the trillion dollar mark until 2022.

Another bright spot the CBO points to is that unemployment is expected to decrease to as low as 5.5% by 2024.

Just a brief FYI for those interested.

Gee,thanks for that information, only a 514 trillion dollar deficit in fiscal year 2014. Let's celebrate. Doesn't that mean that 514 trillion will be added to the debt? Doesn't that mean that the debt will continue to exceed our GDP thus be over 100%? You call that a bright spot, I call that putting lipstick on a pig.

As for unemployment, how many more people have to drop out of the labor force or take on part time jobs to reduce the unemployment rate to 5.5%? I continue to be amazed and how low the standards are for far too many today.

Please name for me the Obama economic policies that lowered the deficit, lowered the unemployment rate, and stimulates economic growth? What you are seeing is how great the U.S. economy is or at least used to be before Obamanomics
 
Not much.

A recent report by the CBO, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014-2024" - the same report that Republicans have misquoted concerning future job projections - states that although spending was up from 2007-2009, "the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years, and it is on a path to decline further this year (FY2014)...with a total est. of $514B (compared to $1.4T in 2009)" In fact, one point the CBO consistently points out is that the deficit will remain below the trillion dollar mark until 2022.

Another bright spot the CBO points to is that unemployment is expected to decrease to 5.8% by 2017 and go as low as 5.5% by 2024.

Just a brief FYI for those interested.

Edits = Red

I guess you didnt read the WHOLE report.

T
he large budget deficits recorded in recent years have
substantially increased federal debt, and the amount of
debt relative to the size of the economy is now very
high by historical standards. CBO estimates that federal
debt held by the public will equal 74 percent of GDP
at the end of this year and 79 percent in 2024 (the end
of the current 10-year projection period). Such large
and growing federal debt could have serious negative
consequences, including restraining economic growth
in the long term,
giving policymakers less flexibility to
respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing
the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which investors would
demand high interest rates to buy the government’s debt).
LONG TERM DAMAGE
 
I guess you didnt read the WHOLE report.

T
LONG TERM DAMAGE

I read it, which is why I applaud efforts being made to reign in spending, generate revenue and pay down the debt which in the long run should reduce the deficit assuming Congress continues to do its job.
 
I guess you didnt read the WHOLE report.

T
LONG TERM DAMAGE

I think what people also do not understand is that there are two parts to the debt that we pay debt service on, public debt and intergovt. holdings which are the SS/Medicare/Govt. obligation accounts that for some reason were put on budget and spent

Further what people also fail to recognize is that deficits continue to grow the debt and this Administration has done nothing to put the 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time paying FIT to help fund that debt service and lower it.
 
I think what people also do not understand is that there are two parts to the debt that we pay debt service on, public debt and intergovt. holdings which are the SS/Medicare/Govt. obligation accounts that for some reason were put on budget and spent

Further what people also fail to recognize is that deficits continue to grow the debt and
this Administration has done nothing to put the 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time paying FIT to help fund that debt service and lower it.
are you now blaming Obama for failing to resurrect the government jobs programs of the FDR era, such as the civilian conservation corps?
and if not, then what are you saying Obama failed to do to create those 21 million job openings
 
are you now blaming Obama for failing to resurrect the government jobs programs of the FDR era, such as the civilian conservation corps?
and if not, then what are you saying Obama failed to do to create those 21 million job openings

No, not at all as that isn't the role of the govt. Obama has no concept as to how to motivate and provide incentive to the private sector to grow jobs and that is what was needed. ACA doesn't do that at all and in fact has hurt employment which is worse than is being reported due to the high number of part time employees in the labor force. Reagan unleashed the American spirit, Obama has stifled it.

Obama and liberals believe in big govt. and big govt. spending, that is the European model. Reagan believed in the American people and the free enterprise economy. The results coming out of similar recessions are quite different
 
No, not at all as that isn't the role of the govt. Obama has no concept as to how to motivate and provide incentive to the private sector to grow jobs and that is what was needed. ACA doesn't do that at all and in fact has hurt employment which is worse than is being reported due to the high number of part time employees in the labor force. Reagan unleashed the American spirit, Obama has stifled it.

Obama and liberals believe in big govt. and big govt. spending, that is the European model. Reagan believed in the American people and the free enterprise economy. The results coming out of similar recessions are quite different

you blame Obama for the private sectors' failure to create 21 million jobs
presented like a partisan ... and without any suggestions how Obama should have assisted the private sector to accomplish that feat, to recover from the bush great recession
 
Back
Top Bottom