State of the Union Address

haymarket · Jan 30, 2012

TurtleDude said:
that legal distinction is a piss poor argument used to justify the government getting two cracks at money earned by a corporation for the benefit of its owners

One would think that an Ivy League educated attorney - at least one who claims to be so - would have a whole lot more respect for the legal distinctions that are so important in the law.

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
That is a state responsibility, not a Federal Responsibility. you have been brainwashed.

It is written in the very goals of our Constitution (the Preamble) that we promote the general welfare of we the people.

That is how it has its been interpreted under the Rule of Law in this country for over a half century under both parties.

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Catawba said:
It is written in the very goals of our Constitution (the Preamble) that we promote the general welfare of we the people.

That it has its been interpreted under the Rule of Law in this country for over a half century under both parties.

Promote does not mean provide, now does it?

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Promote does not mean provide, now does it?

Of course not, that is why any able bodied person can only be on welfare for 2 years without working and there is a 5 year lifetime maximum.

A living wage for full time work would be an alternative to welfare that doesn't require taxpayer support if it can gain in popularity.

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Catawba said:
Of course not, that is why you can only be on welfare for 2 years without working and there is a 5 year lifetime maximum.

The only ones that cannot get a job in two years seems to be someone who believes it is the role of the taxpayer to fund their existence. You do realize that in that same PREAMBLE is the Following PROVIDE for the Common Defense. Notice the difference?

You think people keeping more of what they earn helps promote their own personal welfare? you think that people giving money to charity is better spent that Federal dollars and actually provides better compassion?

tecoyah · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Funny, I grew up a Conservative Democrat, a JFK Democrat and the Democratic Party left me. There is no room in today's Democratic Party for a Conservative. The Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is the most liberal and anti Reagan party in U.S. History

Agreed...both the major parties have dug in and become enemies, rather than partners in making my life better. Quite simply put, they are very bad at the jobs WE hired them for. Picking a "Side" makes this situation no better, and in fact likely perpetrates it. Instead, I prefer to pick the best available...and hope it works.

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
The only ones that cannot get a job in two years seems to be someone who believes it is the role of the taxpayer to fund their existence.

You mean our poor seniors and disabled? What is your beef with them. Everyone else works and pay taxes.

You do realize that in that same PREAMBLE is the Following PROVIDE for the Common Defense. Notice the difference?

That is probably why we don't provide welfare to everyone, ya think?

Also pay attention to the word defense, its not become world conqueror, its defense!

You think people keeping more of what they earn helps promote their own personal welfare?

I thought that for all of the last 30 years when we spent more on the military than we could pay for with our taxes?

you think that people giving money to charity is better spent that Federal dollars and actually provides better compassion.

Charity is already doing what it can, and it isn't enough.

Simply paying people a living wage for full time work is the only workable alternative to welfare.

All Romney is promising is higher spending and further cutting tax rates for the rich. The GOP formula for the same deficit spending they have brought us for the last 30 years.

Sheik Yerbuti · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Promote does not mean provide, now does it?

In Article I, Section 8, "provide" means "provide."

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Catawba;1060159508]You mean our poor seniors and disabled? What is your beef with them. Everyone else works and pay taxes.

No beef at all, how many are there and do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar budget to take care of those truly in need? Like far too many you use a broad brush and assume that all the money going to "help" People is indeed needed and of course no one abuses the system, do they?

That is probably why we don't provide welfare to everyone, ya think?

Also pay attention to the word defense, its not become world conqueror, its defense!

Is that what you were taught, that we should provide welfare to everyone and who is "we?" Is this a Federal or State Responsibility? Can that be better handled by state, local, charities, and churches vs. the Federal govt?

You really have a problem with defense but apparently not a problem with the amount wasted on social programs. Better put things into perspective

We have been hammered with the propaganda that it was the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

That's RIDICULOUS. Here's 14 good reasons why!

Bankruptcy 101…Why Arizona did the right thing!!

I thought that for all of the last 30 years when we spent more on the military than we could pay for with our taxes?

You thought wrong, there is more than enough tax revenue at current rates to pay for our military and the true role of the Federal Govt. I suggest you go to the U.S. Treasury website and educate yourself

Charity is already doing what it can, and it isn't enough.

Simply paying people a living wage for full time work is the only workable alternative to welfare.

All Romney is promising is higher spending and further cutting tax rates for the rich. The GOP formula for the same deficit spending they have brought us for the last 30 years.

How do you know charity isn't enough? Social problems are state and local problems and when you spend your money locally you at least know where it goes.

Living wage argument again? Define living wage and then define who is going to pay the price those wages are going to demand so that a profit can be made or should business be in business to break even?

I don't have a problem with anything Romney is proposing for you see, Romney is the kind of person I always strived to be and one that understands that it is the people's money first not the Federal governments

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
No beef at all, how many are there and do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar budget to take care of those truly in need? Like far too many you use a broad brush and assume that all the money going to "help" People is indeed needed and of course no one abuses the system, do they?

Not as many as rich people who abuse the tax system. And no one is interested in your made up numbers.

Is that what you were taught, that we should provide welfare to everyone and who is "we?" Is this a Federal or State Responsibility? Can that be better handled by state, local, charities, and churches vs. the Federal govt?

Its been handled by the states since the 90's for those a couple decades behind.

You really have a problem with defense but apparently not a problem with the amount wasted on social programs. Better put things into perspective

Money wasted on defense helps no one. Money spent on making our people and our economy stronger benefits everyone.

You thought wrong, there is more than enough tax revenue at current rates to pay for our military and the true role of the Federal Govt. I suggest you go to the U.S. Treasury website and educate yourself

Then don't come crying to me that you want to cut senior benefits to pay for that debt.

How do you know charity isn't enough? Social problems are state and local problems and when you spend your money locally you at least know where it goes.

If it was working we wouldn't have 50 million people living in poverty at the same time the wealth at the top as quadrupled.

Living wage argument again? Define living wage and then define who is going to pay the price those wages are going to demand so that a profit can be made or should business be in business to break even?

A living wage is what a person requires to live above the poverty line, pay taxes and not require welfare for subsistence. It only requires the people at the top to share enough of the profit made by their laborers for them with the laborers so that they do not require tax payer assistance to live above poverty.

I don't have a problem with anything Romney is proposing for you see, Romney is the kind of person I always strived to be and one that understands that it is the people's money first not the Federal governments

Romney is proposing the same excessive spending and revenue reduction that George W. did. Just got to have you some more of that, eh?

mac · Jan 30, 2012

AdamT said:
If that's true, why haven't health care costs fallen in the many states that have enacted tort reform? Why are health care costs in those states rising just as fast as they are in states that haven't enacted tort reform?

First, why don't you show some substantiation of what you are talking about? Second, how long has it been since the first of those states passed such tort reform? Third, what is your explanation for the rise in health care costs?

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Catawba;1060159596]Not as many as rich people who abuse the tax system. And no one is interested in your made up numbers.

Once you get rid of all those rich people who is going to fund your liberal spending appetite? As has been pointed out to you over and over again but apparently it doesn't sink in there aren't enough rich people to make a dent in the deficit or the debt. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem anyway and your comments make you a waste of time because facts, logic, and common sense have no place in your world

Its been handled by the states since the 90's for those a couple decades behind.

Since it has been handled by the states why do we need to increase Federal Income taxes?

Money wasted on defense helps no one. Money spent on making our people and our economy stronger benefits everyone.

Obviously you are right, it gives you the right to make a fool of yourself which is indeed a waste of money

Then don't come crying to me that you want to cut senior benefits to pay for that debt.

As a senior now, I grew up learning personal responsibility and not to depend on you for my own expenses. Too bad you haven't seemed to learn that concept.

If it was working we wouldn't have 50 million people living in poverty at the same time the wealth at the top as quadrupled.

50 million live at or below the poverty level which makes their income middle class in most other countries of the world. How did those rich people put any of those 50 million into poverty and how can the trillions spent on social programs not solve that problem so you claim we need more?

A living wage is what a person requires to live above the poverty line, pay taxes and not require welfare for subsistence. It only requires the people at the top to share enough of the profit made by their laborers for them with the laborers so that they do not require tax payer assistance to live above poverty.

Who are you to decide what another person requires to live above the poverty line and what prevents them from earning more? You want the people to share what they earn? Where did you learn that concept. you want me to write you a check each month? No thanks, I am taking care of my family. As for taking care of others, rich people give more to charity and their churches which must drive you crazy. Keep promoting a bigger central govt. to take over that responsibility then you can continue to whine and complain about poor results.

Romney is proposing the same excessive spending and revenue reduction that George W. did. Just got to have you some more of that, eh?

Interesting that govt. revenue didn't drop until 2008 and after the Democrats took over Congress. Also interesting that Bush grew GDP from 9.9 trillion to 14.2 trillion in 8 years but those facts escape you. you are indeed a waste of time.

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
In Article I, Section 8, "provide" means "provide."

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;

Define Domestic Welfare because the Constitution Dictionary doesn't seem to agree with you

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Welfare

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<MEwel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Once you get rid of all those rich people who is going to fund your liberal spending appetite? As has been pointed out to you over and over again but apparently it doesn't sink in there aren't enough rich people to make a dent in the deficit or the debt. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem anyway and your comments make you a waste of time because facts, logic, and common sense have no place in your world

Why don't you get over the 90's were socialism crap? No one is buying it except the fringe tea party crowd.

Conservative · Jan 30, 2012

Catawba said:
Why don't you get over the 90's were socialism crap? No one is buying it except the fringe tea party crowd.

Will be happy to do that when you get over your anti rich jealousy and envy. Do you really think that those evil rich people are going to fund your liberal spending appetite? If you raise their taxes enough low tax states are going to benefit and that is really going to destroy your state revenue.

Sheik Yerbuti · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Define Domestic Welfare because the Constitution Dictionary doesn't seem to agree with you

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It includes programs such as public education, the post office, CDC, FEMA, FAA, FCC, FDA, EPA, INS.

Catawba · Jan 30, 2012

Conservative said:
Will be happy to do that when you get over your anti rich jealousy and envy. Do you really think that those evil rich people are going to fund your liberal spending appetite? If you raise their taxes enough low tax states are going to benefit and that is really going to destroy your state revenue.

Yeah boy, I remembers how bad it was in the dark days of socialism in the 90's with low unemployment and a small budget deficit!!! We sure wouldn't want to go back to that, would we????

Conservative · Jan 31, 2012

Catawba said:
Yeah boy, I remembers how bad it was in the dark days of socialism in the 90's with low unemployment and a small budget deficit!!! We sure wouldn't want to go back to that, would we????

Right, you have a selective memory and forget that Clinton had the Reagan peace dividend and still added 1.4 trillion to the debt. So much for those small budget deficits? How do you explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes and led to that "claimed" Clinton balanced budget?

OpportunityCost · Jan 31, 2012

Poor dead horse.

ARealConservative · Jan 31, 2012

American said:
It's a demonstration of priorities. Liberalism has won the day since 1962, but they're not satisfied.

so your complaint is death and destruction need higher priorities?

we spend more on defense then we should be spending.

Boo Radley · Jan 31, 2012

tecoyah said:
Thing is...this is extremely recent (relatively), I could even say this;

The GOP is absolutely nothing like the "Party of Reagan"

I voted Reagan...Then Bush Sr...barely

I never left the Republican Party...it left me.

I've come to like Bush sr. more and more through the years. Reagan, though not what republican mythology paintshim, was still wise wnough to ahve competent people working for him. And while I was alble to vote for Dole, the party really has worsen over the years. In short, I hear ya.

Catawba · Jan 31, 2012

Conservative said:
Right, you have a selective memory and forget that Clinton had the Reagan peace dividend and still added 1.4 trillion to the debt. So much for those small budget deficits? How do you explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes and led to that "claimed" Clinton balanced budget?

Are you blaming Obama for the Bush wars he inherited? Do you want to go back to the tax rates after the the tax relief Act of 1997? Deal! As they were higher than they were before being cut by Bush. And much higher than what Romney is proposing.

Romney has said he wants to increase spending and decrease revenues. Just sounds like more debt to me, the same thing the GOP has brought us for the last 30 years!

Donc · Jan 31, 2012

Conservative said:
Right, you have a selective memory and forget that Clinton had the Reagan peace dividend and still added 1.4 trillion to the debt. So much for those small budget deficits? How do you explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes and led to that "claimed" Clinton balanced budget?

"Reagan peace dividend "whatta joke.:lamo

Conservative · Jan 31, 2012

Catawba said:
Are you blaming Obama for the Bush wars he inherited? Do you want to go back to the tax rates after the the tax relief Act of 1997? Deal! As they were higher than they were before being cut by Bush. And much higher than what Romney is proposing.

Romney has said he wants to increase spending and decrease revenues. Just sounds like more debt to me, the same thing the GOP has brought us for the last 30 years!

You are so out of touch with reality it is shocking. So much emphasis on taxpayers funding liberal programs that you ignore the fact that taxpayers keeping more of their money need less of that so called liberal help and that is what scares the hell out of liberal politicians.

Romney has said no such thing, you are delusional. Romney knows that a growing economy increases govt. revenue, you cannot grasp that concept.

Sheik Yerbuti · Jan 31, 2012

Conservative said:
Right, you have a selective memory and forget that Clinton had the Reagan peace dividend and still added 1.4 trillion to the debt.

You mean the Nixon peace dividend, right? The last war we had prior to then was Vietnam.

Conservative said:
How do you explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes and led to that "claimed" Clinton balanced budget?

It didn't lead to that. The budget deficit was already dropping every year before than and in FY1999, the second fiscal year following the tax cuts, the deficit grew by 92 billion more than the previous year.

. . . . . . . Growth by year
------------------------
FY1992: +23,434,812,235
FY1993: -52,449,076,207
FY1994: -65,607,200,744
FY1995: -28,036,178
FY1996: -30,404,952,270
FY1997: -62,492,966,165
------------------------ tax cuts (aug/2007)
FY1998: -75,288,074,761
FY1999: +17,030,895,218
FY2000: -112,170,584,446
FY2001: +35,691,220,146

State of the Union Address

haymarket

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

tecoyah

Illusionary

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Sheik Yerbuti

Conservative

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

mac

Conservative

Conservative

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

Sheik Yerbuti

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

OpportunityCost

ARealConservative

cookies crumble

Boo Radley

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Donc

Conservative

Sheik Yerbuti