SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

justabubba said:

as is typical, you are again found to be wrong

Click to expand...

again..you have proven to not know a thing about private sector business ownership....your posts prove that..

Re: SOTU Address:

Yes? Speaking of partisanship?

jonny5 said:

Speaking of partisanship.

Click to expand...

Re: SOTU Address:

Conservative said:

I linked to the budget of the United States obviously not a site that you are familiar with. I am still waiting for an itemized list of the 2.5 trillion in cuts Obama says he has initiated. Seems that the budget of the United States is foreign to people like you as is the debt and deficits which they report and taxpayers pay debt service on.

One of these days you and all other liberals are going to wake up and wonder what the hell happened. Imagine debt service and normal interest rates on a 16.5 trillion dollar debt? Debt service is the fourth largest budget item so tell me what benefit that provides to the American people?

Click to expand...

See, I actually know how to read things, and understand where to find them. Your only hope is to desperately try and misdirected from the information I provided which proved you wrong. Won't work though. I am able to see through your mindlessly parroted talking points that you don't really understand.

Re: SOTU Address:

Redress said:

See, I actually know how to read things, and understand where to find them. Your only hope is to desperately try and misdirected from the information I provided which proved you wrong. Won't work though. I am able to see through your mindlessly parroted talking points that you don't really understand.

Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between the Dept of Treasury and CBO? Didn't think so. Which one do you believe is more accurate?

Adagio said:

That is absolutely ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage won't do squat to employers. What it will do is provide more spending into the economy by workers that are now making a living wage. Your assuming that everyone is making minimum wage when they aren't. Most employers pay higher than the minimum wage already. You're talking about minimum wage jobs like McDonalds or Wal-Mart? Do you actually think that these companies can't afford to pay a living wage to people? All you're doing is advocating for employers to get the cheapest labor they can get. So what if a person is working 40 hours and getting paid below poverty. We wouldn't want to hurt the employer would we? This is amazing! You're actually a champion for keeping people in poverty. Well done.:roll: Have you considered that the more money people have the more they will spend and the more demand for goods and that employer will have to meet the demand by hiring people rather than laying off anybody? It's consumer spending that drives jobs. It's not my problem that you don't grasp that.

Click to expand...

Have you ever started or run your own business? Your entire post is nothing more than flimsy strawmen and rhetoric. You fail to see the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with raising the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage increases poverty, it doesn't alleviate it. The association with wages and poverty is slim at best. As I pointed out in a previous post. It has more to do with skill and education. If you raise the minimum wage, it crowds out the lowest skilled and least educated workers. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs. It is not supposed to be a "living wage". If workers are struggling with minimum wage jobs at the moment, and they are underemployed, that's just more evidence that our Economy sucks because of Obama's failed policies. The absolute worst time to raise the minimum wage is also during a recession, because there is a contraction in jobs available, hence more competition for fewer jobs. Youth and minorities end up becoming crowded out of the Labor Market.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/1999/0201.pdf

Re: SOTU Address:

Conservative said:

Do you know the difference between the Dept of Treasury and CBO? Didn't think so. Which one do you believe is more accurate?

Click to expand...

Of course I do, and I did not link to either. I linked to an organization of legislation. You have heard of that, haven't you?

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Do the math.

By B. Furnas on Feb 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that President Obama, in the budget he’s releasing next week, will not use “four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller.”

The changes: account for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (“overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of “emergency” supplemental spending bills, assume the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, account for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipate the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than the distorted Bush baseline, but that debt was always there. It was just being hidden. President Bush’s budgets hid billions with elaborate budget gimmicks. They took war-spending off the books, tried to eliminate the costs of wildly expensive tax cuts for the wealthy, and claimed savings through unrealistic, unspecified future cuts in vital discretionary spending.

I remember vividly when it was announced that Bush would remove the wars from the budget. I also remember as vividly that Obama would put them back on the books. And yes...it was hidden for eight years because so many people didn't even bother to ask questions. We went to war on lies and nobody asked questions. Why would you think that this was so hard to do?

Click to expand...

This is complete phooey. Clinton never ran a surplus. Show us the year, any year, where the debt went down ? The last time was during Eisenhower.

Further, you use the base year for Obama's first buget as being the one that ended FY 2010, assigning FY 2009 to Bush. Yet 2009 included a good portion of Stimulus, as well as TARP spending that had been appropriated, but not comitted. The net result is that Obama hiked FY 2009 spending by over $600B above the budget originally signed by Bush.

Obama owns all the largest deficits.

Whipsnade said:

Hhmm… eh?:doh

Tell that to the 1.45 million people who are working as a direct result of the $80 billion auto bailout.

But of course you knew that, when you attempted to deflect to the “non-partisan stimulus “rather than addressing the economic advantages of the multiplier effects of increasing minimum wages 25%.

That's understandable in a somewhat draconian way when you realize that the only way republicans (The party who is against economically struggling Americans) can get elected,on a national level in the 21st century is with lies and voter suppression.eace

Click to expand...

Your response is silly

GM still owes the US taxpayer billions of dollars. There was no multiplier. GM shareholders were also left holding the bag. The GM Bailout was nothing more than a massive payoff to the UAW with taxpayer dollars. In the real world, that's called a scam.

http://www.sigtarp.gov/Quarterly Reports/July_25_2012_Report_to_Congress.pdf

Obama's Failed Stimulus was voted on down party lines. It was not bi-partisan. It added it's entire cost to the deficit, and it has added it's entire cost to the deficit every year since they the Democrats passed that massive failure. (It was added to the Federal Government's baseline expenditures)

justabubba said:

the government establishes a wage floor to protect the employees until the business fails

Click to expand...

You nailed it ! Government "protects" the employees, until the business fails. Then how'd it work out for them ?

Priceless, btw.

Re: SOTU Address:

Redress said:

Of course I do, and I did not link to either. I linked to an organization of legislation. You have heard of that, haven't you?

Click to expand...

Yes, but referenced in that article was CBO information and further there is no better information than the data from the Treasury Dept. That is the bank account of the U.S. You really ought to learn how to use that site and where to get accurate information. Who do you go to for your own financial information if not your bank? The Treasury Dept is OUR bank.

Still waiting for the defined 2.5 trillion in line item CUTS. You are the one dancing around here because you seem to have the inability to admit when wrong. Obama has cut nothing, the reduction in the deficit was irrelevant because it was so small and had nothing to do with anything Obama has done. That is reality

Eighty Deuce said:

You nailed it ! Government "protects" the employees, until the business fails. Then how'd it work out for them ?

Priceless, btw.

Click to expand...

It is priceless... so the employee can skip off as the owner is left with the debt....


and Obama wonder why the private sector is not hiring?..Obama is dumber then dirt or working to to destroy the USA

Bronson said:

Have you ever started or run your own business? Your entire post is nothing more than flimsy strawmen and rhetoric. You fail to see the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with raising the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage increases poverty, it doesn't alleviate it. The association with wages and poverty is slim at best. As I pointed out in a previous post. It has more to do with skill and education. If you raise the minimum wage, it crowds out the lowest skilled and least educated workers. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs. It is not supposed to be a "living wage". If workers are struggling with minimum wage jobs at the moment, and they are underemployed, that's just more evidence that our Economy sucks because of Obama's failed policies. The absolute worst time to raise the minimum wage is also during a recession, because there is a contraction in jobs available, hence more competition for fewer jobs. Youth and minorities end up becoming crowded out of the Labor Market.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/1999/0201.pdf

Click to expand...

well said Bronson...

I have yet to attract talented people by offering them 9 bucks an hour...but I will not hire summer workers now..

Re: SOTU Address:

specklebang said:

Yes? Speaking of partisanship?
View attachment 67142611

Click to expand...

If your objections are ased on your dislike of Obama, then please just say so. I'm discussing one single aspect of the SOTU speech and I think it bears examination not clouded by partisan hatred.

Click to expand...

Assuming that any disagreement with Obama means someone is partisan is a very partisan thing to do.

Re: SOTU Address:

That was an individualized response to another post. Not a generic accusation. I think we may have different interpretations of the term. I think I've adequately explained this.

jonny5 said:

Assuming that any disagreement with Obama means someone is partisan is a very partisan thing to do.

Click to expand...

Re: SOTU Address:

ocean515 said:

I believe the question was to explain California.

The government in California is one of the most progressive in the Nation, and the agressive actions they have been taking go back before 2000. That leaves 14 years to answer for.

Click to expand...

The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

Click to expand...

This is the largest, deepest, pile of excrement that I have seen here in a long time. Conservatism empowers the individual, while disempowering government. Liberalism empowers government, restricting the freedom of the individual. Your post could not be more topsy-turvy bass-ackward.

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

Click to expand...

That's alot of words to avoid answering a simple question. Would you care to answer it, or do you intend to just keep the flow of words coming?

Attempting to question my intelligence, or questioning my ability to reason really is rather juvenile, don't you think?

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

Click to expand...

Since this thread is about the SOU speech and Obama performance, here is something you and other supporters will ignore completely just like all the other Obama lies. I doubt seriously that you would have allowed Bush to get away with this BS

State of the Union 2013 - YouTube

Re: SOTU Address:

Conservative said:

Do you have any idea what debt service is or even what the actual spending was? Try educating yourself and think for a change. Here, this will help you but doubt seriously that you have any desire to learn actual facts

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Cuts in the deficit are irrelevant when govt. spending increases which it has every year under Obama.

Click to expand...

So you aren't actually interested in reducing the deficit. Your only interest is actually in spending? Why? Spending money is what drives an ecomomy. When money is spent, some kind of good or service is being provided. People spend money to buy that service or product. The more money that is spent, the more demand is placed on the company that provides the goods or service. When that demand is strong enough, the company hires more people to serve the demand for the goods or services. Those people in turn have more money in their pockets and they buy goods or services as well, placing more demand at more companies to hire people to service those demands. If money isn't spent, then goods and services aren't being moved, and people get laid off. When you cut spending, you cut jobs. Why do you want to cut jobs?

When you cut spending such as cops, teachers, fire fighters, first responders, you're cutting jobs. When these people have no jobs, and you cut programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants, Medicare, what are these people suppose to do to live and keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and pay for school for their kids?

You're an economic reductionist. You believe in economism. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Human lives are secondary in your considerations. In other words, all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in still other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist.

The difference in our views is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree.

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

Click to expand...

are you serious?...

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:

So you aren't actually interested in reducing the deficit. Your only interest is actually in spending? Why? Spending money is what drives an ecomomy. When money is spent, some kind of good or service is being provided. People spend money to buy that service or product. The more money that is spent, the more demand is placed on the company that provides the goods or service. When that demand is strong enough, the company hires more people to serve the demand for the goods or services. Those people in turn have more money in their pockets and they buy goods or services as well, placing more demand at more companies to hire people to service those demands. If money isn't spent, then goods and services aren't being moved, and people get laid off. When you cut spending, you cut jobs. Why do you want to cut jobs?

When you cut spending such as cops, teachers, fire fighters, first responders, you're cutting jobs. When these people have no jobs, and you cut programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants, Medicare, what are these people suppose to do to live and keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and pay for school for their kids?

You're an economic reductionist. You believe in economism. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Human lives are secondary in your considerations. In other words, all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in still other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist.

The difference in our views is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree.

Click to expand...

You beleive the goverment needs to extract more money from the people who work, so they can spend it on the people who dont?...

thats a winning formula... not..

Re: SOTU Address:

Conservative said:

Budgets are yearly, deficits are yearly, Obama has had four years of trillion dollar deficits. Neither Reagan, GWH Bush or GW Bush forced Obama to spend over a trillion dollars a year more than revenue generated. With people like you supporting this kind of fiscal irresponsibility of Obama's this country will become part of history. You have no concept of debt, fiscal responsibility, debt service, or the U.S. Budget. You show that with every post. Now run away as usual.

Click to expand...

You have no clue on how top do any thing but cut cut cut which does nothing but create the same economic disaster we are dealing with today, your motivated by greed nothing more nothing less for you it is about me me me me and more me, now take your own advice and run off until you really understand how an economy works and what has to be done to fuel our economy.

Re: SOTU Address:

EarlzP said:

You have no clue on how top do any thing but cut cut cut which does nothing but create the same economic disaster we are dealing with today, your motivated by greed nothing more nothing less for you it is about me me me me and more me, now take your own advice and run off until you really understand how an economy works and what has to be done to fuel our economy.

Click to expand...

tell me the last time we had a debt at this level?...and tell me how it worked out...

your posts are just liberal gruel

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio;1061465704]So you aren't actually interested in reducing the deficit. Your only interest is actually in spending? Why? Spending money is what drives an ecomomy. When money is spent, some kind of good or service is being provided. People spend money to buy that service or product. The more money that is spent, the more demand is placed on the company that provides the goods or service. When that demand is strong enough, the company hires more people to serve the demand for the goods or services. Those people in turn have more money in their pockets and they buy goods or services as well, placing more demand at more companies to hire people to service those demands. If money isn't spent, then goods and services aren't being moved, and people get laid off. When you cut spending, you cut jobs. Why do you want to cut jobs?

Click to expand...

Consumer spending drives the economy as apparently you don't know the components of GDP or what those components generate in percentages. Govt. spending is offset by the debt that spending is creating along with a reduction in personal income withholding takes from the paychecks. Consumer spending creates demand and demand leads to job creation

Companies are in business to make a profit, not to provide jobs. Jobs however are provided by a growing economy and that grows govt. revenue. Obama has overseen a stagnant economy and one that has 22 million plus unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force.

When you cut spending such as cops, teachers, fire fighters, first responders, you're cutting jobs. When these people have no jobs, and you cut programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants, Medicare, what are these people suppose to do to live and keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and pay for school for their kids?

Click to expand...

You must be in a school system that doesn't teach you what funds what services. You easily confuse Federal Responsibility with state responsibility. Let me help you, here is what the Federal Income Taxes fund

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce/Housing Cr
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

Click to expand...

It isn't the federal taxpayer's responsibility to fund teachers, cops, firefighters in your community. Why do you think it is? Medicare and SS aren't funded by Federal Income Taxes nor are schools, roads, police, or fire fighters. Please learn what your taxes fund and whose responsibility it is.

You're an economic reductionist. You believe in economism. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Human lives are secondary in your considerations. In other words, all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in still other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist.

Click to expand...

You live in a world of books ignoring the world of reality. You have no concept of human behavior, personal responsibility, or consequences of poor choices made. What is your experitise on human behavior, individual living expenses, a liveable wage. Human lives rely on personal responsibility and making choices. Some make terrible choices and according to people like you there are no consequences in those poor choices. That is a liberal dream world where someone else pays for your personal mistakes.

The difference in our views is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree.

Click to expand...

Not only the different in our views but the difference in our experience. You live in a liberal dream world that has never solved a social problem. You live in a world where spending in the name of compassion is more important than solving a problem or getting compassionate spending. You know very little about history, very little about personal responsibilty, very little about economics, very little about business and yet you come into a forum like this making typical liberal claims.

Freedom comes with responsibility, responsibility for choices made and for taking responsibility for ones self. Freedom is indeed valuable as well as profitable. You don't understand either. In your world there are no consequences for failure, in the real world there is. You want the govt. to bail you out of poor choices, I prefer learning from mistakes and moving on never making them again.

You think a massive central govt. that liberals propose promotes freedom? This Administration is doing more to destroy freedom than any other in history. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. That is a prescription for failure.

Re: SOTU Address:

EarlzP said:

You have no clue on how top do any thing but cut cut cut which does nothing but create the same economic disaster we are dealing with today, your motivated by greed nothing more nothing less for you it is about me me me me and more me, now take your own advice and run off until you really understand how an economy works and what has to be done to fuel our economy.

Click to expand...

If Obamas plan worked ( which it cant....hes actively destroying the economy) then why hasnt it worked?.... compared to GWB Obama is a disaster...thats stone cold fact..

you do know the USA has been downgraded.?...is that fact lost on you?... what comeback do you have?