• 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!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

And here's what CNN has to say.

 
"They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending."
Click to expand...
LOL - What? There hasn't been a plan introduced that will actually pay off current debt. At best they slow the spending binge.
 
Harry Reid Calls House Republicans’ Bluff | ThinkProgress

What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan.
Click to expand...

:applaud
 
BDBoop said:
And here's what CNN has to say.

Click to expand...


Reid plan "probably would pass hurdle"? That's news to Moody's:
Moody's warned the measure should include substantial spending cuts as well.

"Without more substantial deficit reductions being included in such a plan, it would be negative for the long-term outlook," the report said.
Click to expand...
 
I thought we were going to discuss reactions to the speech. Except for the NYT rah-rah piece, these seem to be pre-speech reports. Since that's allowed, let me lower The Krauthammer

Krauthammer: Obama "Has Gone From Emperor To Bystander" | RealClearPolitics

Charles Krauthammer: "When I heard today that he was going to speak at 9:00, instantly I thought, 'we've got a deal.' Why else would the President request airtime? Then I hear he's just going to make his argument.. . I think the President is speaking tonight because he's gone from Emperor to bystander in three days, and he wants to be at least in on it to be resolved, and doesn't want it to be appear as it was resolved in spite of him and without him."

"It's his Campaign. 2012. He warned, I think it was Eric Cantor in one of these meetings, 'I will take it to the country.' That's what he's doing. This is campaigning. This is all about -- look, the date he chose as a drop-dead date, the debt ceiling extension has to go into the election. It's a political date. It has as much relation to real economics as the surge withdrawal date in Afghanistan does to actually military reality. None whatsoever. It's not an economic date. It's a date which will help him get through the election without having to answer questions all the time on debt and how he's increased it by $4 Trillion."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
First the hysterics, followed by standing ovation. My, we are easily swayed. It's cute that liberals are continuing the cheerleading, but I would expect more of a fight coming. Don't worry. At the end of this, a deal is signed. The OP won't have to worry about starting a Revolution like what was apparently needed because the big bad Republicans are tearing this nation apart.

The pulpit was well used tonight. It swayed many into fervent action.
Expect the Republicans to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
LOL - What? There hasn't been a plan introduced that will actually pay off current debt. At best they slow the spending binge.
Click to expand...

Which includes Ryan's plan which merely finances tax cuts with spending reductions with virtually no real impact upon the deficit. To which the GOP cheered loudly. Fiscal conservatives they are not.

But there HAS been a real plan. The Bowles plan was a realistic plan to get us back to financial stability. And it got shot down by both sides.
 
Fiddytree said:
First the hysterics, followed by standing ovation. My, we are easily swayed. It's cute that liberals are continuing the cheerleading, but I would expect more of a fight coming. Don't worry. At the end of this, a deal is signed. The OP won't have to worry about starting a Revolution like what was apparently needed because the big bad Republicans are tearing this nation apart.

The pulpit was well used tonight. It swayed many into fervent action.
Expect the Republicans to do the same.
Click to expand...

harumph harumph
hear! hear!
well said, sir, well said,
damn strait
 
X Factor said:
Call is slippery slope if you like, but it makes sense that, if you believe raising taxes on the so called rich is the only right and moral thing to do then the you must also believe that the higher the taxation, the more moral and right it is, especially since I've never seen someone who advocates for taxing the rich express how much, they think, would finally be enough.
Click to expand...
Could start with enough to help pay down the bills. There will never be a real formula because there are far too many factors with different weighting to have some kind of master equation to figure out what is "fair".


Also, you're speaking of corporations as if they don't contribute anything (like jobs and taxes) or provide any service.
Click to expand...

People contribute work which creates the profits that the boss collects which then partially go to taxes. Ironic that those horrible taxes are paid by the workers rather than the corporation. Are these the same workers that "don't pay taxes", because they have so little income they would be knocked down a class if they paid their "fair share" ?

You also ignore the reality that anyone starting a business also runs the risk of having it fail spectacularly. The only reason to incur such risk is the potential for great reward. I know how distasteful the word "profit" is to some, but many people, rich and poor, benefit from the things brought about because of a motive to make money.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the point is here, isn't that the ideology that you support? Are you suggesting that we should take steps to make sure businesses don't fail, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Or are you afraid those that are successful are being robbed blind of their profits??? I don't understand how you could suggest such a thing when its obvious those that are successful have so, so much compensation, they reap benefits normal people can't even fathom. Kind of bizarre where you're going with this.

I don't disagree that everyone should pay. The rich are paying and fully about half of the population is supported by the other half.
Click to expand...
The reason the rich pay so much in taxes is because they have all the money... Go ahead and tax the "freeloaders" into the ground, you won't get much juice from an already squeezed lemon.

I see this constantly, people don't know that Capitalism has some flaws and that the higher you go up the ladder the more disproportionate the compensation becomes. And as you go down the compensation becomes much less than the work performed. Yet when it comes time to write down the score we forget that the amount of wealth you have does not necessarily equal the amount you contribute to society. Suddenly the guy making 10 bucks an hour to do 20 an hour worth of work is a freeloader that is supported by the boss that makes 30 an hour to do 10 worth of work? Yeah...

Tell me how the so called poor (folks in other countries would just love the standard of living our poor have) are paying when they somehow get a tax refund on taxes they never had to pay. I'd really be interested in knowing how much "soaking the rich" would be enough for you.
Click to expand...

I guess we should count our blessings we're not working 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread, is that what you want middle class America to be?
 
Verax said:
Could start with enough to help pay down the bills. There will never be a real formula because there are far too many factors with different weighting to have some kind of master equation to figure out what is "fair".




People contribute work which creates the profits that the boss collects which then partially go to taxes. Ironic that those horrible taxes are paid by the workers rather than the corporation. Are these the same workers that "don't pay taxes", because they have so little income they would be knocked down a class if they paid their "fair share" ?



I don't see what the point is here, isn't that the ideology that you support? Are you suggesting that we should take steps to make sure businesses don't fail, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Or are you afraid those that are successful are being robbed blind of their profits??? I don't understand how you could suggest such a thing when its obvious those that are successful have so, so much compensation, they reap benefits normal people can't even fathom. Kind of bizarre where you're going with this.


The reason the rich pay so much in taxes is because they have all the money... Go ahead and tax the "freeloaders" into the ground, you won't get much juice from an already squeezed lemon.

I see this constantly, people don't know that Capitalism has some flaws and that the higher you go up the ladder the more disproportionate the compensation becomes. And as you go down the compensation becomes much less than the work performed. Yet when it comes time to write down the score we forget that the amount of wealth you have does not necessarily equal the amount you contribute to society. Suddenly the guy making 10 bucks an hour to do 20 an hour worth of work is a freeloader that is supported by the boss that makes 30 an hour to do 10 worth of work? Yeah...



I guess we should count our blessings we're not working 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread, is that what you want middle class America to be?
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard. That's one amazing first post.
 
Verax said:
Could start with enough to help pay down the bills. There will never be a real formula because there are far too many factors with different weighting to have some kind of master equation to figure out what is "fair".




People contribute work which creates the profits that the boss collects which then partially go to taxes. Ironic that those horrible taxes are paid by the workers rather than the corporation. Are these the same workers that "don't pay taxes", because they have so little income they would be knocked down a class if they paid their "fair share" ?



I don't see what the point is here, isn't that the ideology that you support? Are you suggesting that we should take steps to make sure businesses don't fail, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Or are you afraid those that are successful are being robbed blind of their profits??? I don't understand how you could suggest such a thing when its obvious those that are successful have so, so much compensation, they reap benefits normal people can't even fathom. Kind of bizarre where you're going with this.


The reason the rich pay so much in taxes is because they have all the money... Go ahead and tax the "freeloaders" into the ground, you won't get much juice from an already squeezed lemon.

I see this constantly, people don't know that Capitalism has some flaws and that the higher you go up the ladder the more disproportionate the compensation becomes. And as you go down the compensation becomes much less than the work performed. Yet when it comes time to write down the score we forget that the amount of wealth you have does not necessarily equal the amount you contribute to society. Suddenly the guy making 10 bucks an hour to do 20 an hour worth of work is a freeloader that is supported by the boss that makes 30 an hour to do 10 worth of work? Yeah...



I guess we should count our blessings we're not working 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread, is that what you want middle class America to be?
Click to expand...

The corporation pays waaaaay more taxes than the worker. The corporation pay unemploymet, workman's comp, social security and medicare.

Stop with the myths, please.
 
For those believing we can go beyond August 2nd, no problemo.

Debt Debate: Anything You Can Do to Protect Your Money? - The Note

"If they downgrade the U.S. Treasury, that will be the most significant downgrade in the history of rating agencies," said Jim Kessler of Third Way, a non-partisan economic think tank in Washington, D.C.

What would the downgrade alone mean to you?

Analysts forecast a 6 percent drop in the stock market. The average 401(k) of $140,000 would lose $9,000.
Mortgage rates would likely rise at least a half point. That's a $19,000 hike on the average $172,000 home loan.
And the overall economy would be hit with 1 percent drop in GNP, translating into 640,000 lost jobs.
And that's just the immediate damage.

"I would compare it to a marriage where one spouse cheats on the other," Kessler said. "The marriage may survive, but it will never be the same again. And if there is a downgrade on U.S. treasuries, our economy will survive but it will never be the same again, as well."
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
The corporation pays waaaaay more taxes than the worker. The corporation pay unemploymet, workman's comp, social security and medicare.

Stop with the myths, please.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't understand, where do the profits come from in a corporation? The work that the workers do, they cannot come from anywhere else. Corporations collect taxes through workers surplus value. If there was no surplus there would be no profit, therefore the worker must be paid less than the value of their work. The problem is what is fair? That is one of the flaws in Capitalism. So what happens is the worker is paid the bare minimum the controllers can get away with and take an unfairly large some of the surplus for themselves. Then they have to gall to turn around and claim "I make all the money! I pay all the taxes!, this is SO unfair". The compensation is out of wack in the U.S., we've become accustomed to the idea that the CEO should be paid 1x 2x 3x thousand times more than the average worker. Without strong free market conditions to discourage this model, the barons get a pretty damn good deal.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Tonight's speeches were all about blaming "the other guy" to lay the ground work for excuses for when the **** hits the fan next week. Republicans of late have been the party of "no." Now we will learn if that's the sort of government America wants.

:hitsfan:
Click to expand...

The Republicans passed a plan. The Dems said "no". (Except of course for the Dems that also voted for it)
 
Verax said:
Apparently you didn't understand, where do the profits come from in a corporation? The work that the workers do, they cannot come from anywhere else. Corporations collect taxes through workers surplus value. If there was no surplus there would be no profit, therefore the worker must be paid less than the value of their work. The problem is what is fair? That is one of the flaws in Capitalism. So what happens is the worker is paid the bare minimum the controllers can get away with and take an unfairly large some of the surplus for themselves. Then they have to gall to turn around and claim "I make all the money! I pay all the taxes!, this is SO unfair". The compensation is out of wack in the U.S., we've become accustomed to the idea that the CEO should be paid 1x 2x 3x thousand times more than the average worker. Without strong free market conditions to discourage this model, the barons get a pretty damn good deal.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess this is why corporations like GM and Chysler was so successful.
 
1Perry said:
I'm going to guess this is why corporations like GM and Chysler was so successful.
Click to expand...

GM and Chrysler were quite successful when workers were paid much more relative to the CEO. Unfortunately management then decided to kick the can down the road (as we must now say). Rather than raise pay, they negotiated generous health care and pension benefits. The downside there is that it hamstrings management's ability to respond to down times, and of course those benefits are cumulative.
 
AdamT said:
GM and Chrysler were quite successful when workers were paid much more relative to the CEO. Unfortunately management then decided to kick the can down the road (as we must now say). Rather than raise pay, they negotiated generous health care and pension benefits. The downside there is that it hamstrings management's ability to respond to down times, and of course those benefits are cumulative.
Click to expand...

Right, it had nothing to do with paying people to sit around all day doing nothing.

The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition

I'm not about to defend CEO's getting paid huge sums of money all the while the company is losing money but part of the problem is people not willing to either care or understand all of the problems.
 
X Factor said:
Tiny, tiny disagreement with you. I think pandering is telling people what they want to hear, whether the speaker actually agrees with it or not, in order to gain something.
Click to expand...

True, there must be some sort of gain from it, but that gain is implied by the fact that it rallies their supporters. I also feel that pandering must be devoid of any real substance and aimed at garnering an emotional reaction.

I feel both speeches fit this description.
 
LuckyDan said:
Pandering? Yeah, but we can still grade them on honesty and effectiveness.
Click to expand...

True. But, IMO, they both contained lies of ommission as well as outright dishonesty. I personally don't care who was more dishonest, because my grading scale on that one is a simple dichotomy: honest or dishonest. They both got the latter grade.

And judging by the reactions in this thread according to demographic, I'd say they were equally effective in rallying the people who already agree with them.

I don't think either speech was good enough sway people on the fence on the issue. They both came across like pandering douchebags to me, and judging by other people's comments and agreements here, that was how they came off ot a lot of people.

What I'm really interested in is how the commentator reaction to the speeches might influence views.

I watched the speeches on FOX like some other people did, and Shepard Smith's immediate comments about each speech were somewhat suprising as he came across as promoting Obama's approach to me. Especially his dig at Boehner right after he spoke regarding Boehner's claim that 5 democrats counted as bipartisan support. I thought he was blatantly biased in favor of Obama with his reaction, actually. I'm interested in how that will go over. Sometimes having one lie exposed immediately has more of a detrimental effect than having multiple lies exposed later will.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Call is slippery slope if you like, but it makes sense that, if you believe raising taxes on the so called rich is the only right and moral thing to do then the you must also believe that the higher the taxation, the more moral and right it is, especially since I've never seen someone who advocates for taxing the rich express how much, they think, would finally be enough.

Also, you're speaking of corporations as if they don't contribute anything (like jobs and taxes) or provide any service. You also ignore the reality that anyone starting a business also runs the risk of having it fail spectacularly. The only reason to incur such risk is the potential for great reward. I know how distasteful the word "profit" is to some, but many people, rich and poor, benefit from the things brought about because of a motive to make money.

I don't disagree that everyone should pay. The rich are paying and fully about half of the population is supported by the other half. Tell me how the so called poor (folks in other countries would just love the standard of living our poor have) are paying when they somehow get a tax refund on taxes they never had to pay. I'd really be interested in knowing how much "soaking the rich" would be enough for you.
Click to expand...

good point-as long as the rich keep making money or having money to invest there are those who want them to pay more and more because the labor under the delusion that the government GIVES the rich stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom