• 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!

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

No. It's not. It's evidence of people like yourself standing in the way of opportunity for people. You can't very well make a case for failed policies until they've actually been implemented and then evaluate the results. He's just started his second term. The jury is still out. You're partisanship is prejudging the effects. How can you say that policies which have been blocked are failed policies. We haven't even tried most of them yet.

So when the President stated ‘Will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing’ during the ’08 campaign and hasn’t got anything done (except reissuing the assertion 50 cents lower) we can’t call that ‘failed’? Blocked? Show me the legislation that was proposed to the DEMOCRATICALLY held congress that blocked such…

Btw others do describe it as ‘failed’:
Obama broken promises - increase the minimum wage to 9.50 an hour
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You missed the part about "brevity". And the wit that comes with it. ;)

Again, read the words of Jefferson. I know it hurts liberals to comprehend such, but give it a whack.

Are you claiming to be witty? Is that what you're doing? :confused: And Jefferson was quite elaborate in his writing. Take a look at the D of I. Go ahead. give it a whack.
 
?Tell them to their face ? What are you eleven years old Yes, you Libs, which would include Obama and his ilk . demagogue issues and use the blood of innocents to push a very old liberal agenda. Gun control.

Obviously those in the gallery agree with Obama's nonsensical gun control regulation that would do nothing to stop gun violence by criminals. Also cold is again, using the deaths of 20 innocent children to push a gun agenda. Enough of your false concern.






LOL !!! Losing what ? The collapse in 2008 was due to liberal democrat HUD and CRA regulations put on lending institutions and the GSEs that caused them to lower their underwriting standards and buy up massive amounts of toxic debt. It's over your head I know but it's the truth.

Millions of abject morons elected the least qualified candidate in 2008 to come in and address the collapse of the Democrat mandated bubble. He passed a horrible health care law, and gave public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies billions and lied about shovel ready jobs. So after hearing you and your ilk whine about " Bush the idiot" your solution was to elect an ACTUAL idiot who created a massive structural debt and increased dependency and has a shrinking economy to show for it.

Nice...




No, the difference between you and me is you feign concern over dead children and Teachers to push your agenda and you legitimize it by making ridiculous statements like... " blood drenched psycho that runs it "

I actually DO care about the safety of our citizens and would allow law abiding people to defend themselves and also armed security guards in schools. You see I DONT want more dead children, you and Obama see it as an opportunity. I imagined more than a few high fives going around the white house when the body count came in.

Classy...



Your so ignorant of so much, it's what makes you a Liberal. Obama's at 16 trillion and counting with 1 trillion dollar defecits, a rising dependent class, a shrinking economy, with the Fed pumping out billions every month , monetizing our debt and inflating the bond market. 8,500,000 people have disappeared out of the work force. Those jobs are gone.

Health care is rising, Banks and corporations are holding on to their reserves and capital because only an idiot would invest in Obama's economy. In 2008 the Fed started paying banks interest on their reserves, ( the money THEY HAVE TO HAVE ON HAND BY LAW ) So under Obama's FED nominee has encouraged the banks NOT to lend by paying them interest on they're massive reserves.

The Fed also controls the amount of reserves banks get to hold. With massive spending 900 billion last quarter and massive capital injections the economy shrank. You have nothing to brag about, your President is destroying the economy.

The Dow ? That's what you point too ? ... It's ironic that Libs are so desperate in cherry picking out any good economic data they are no cheering the rich getting richer. Do you understand WHY the DOW is at 14,000 ? It's called capital injections by the Fed on a short term basis by spending 85 billion a month on MBS and Treasuries...

The Fed's Bond buying is going to stop this year, they've done everything they know how to to spur a recovery but alas, really gullible simple people elected Obama twice and our economy will continue to shrink with world wide economic implications. Germany's economy shrank, that's just in. Spain, Italy Greece. These are the poster children of the Liberal movement. And it's nothing but a continuation of mediocrity and misery.

Don't preach to me about cold heartedness when your "limitations" have been hoisted upon the shoulders of so many American families struggling under Obama's shrinking economy and exploding debt to make ends meet. You voted for hium, your complicit in their prolonged misery as Obama focus's on "gun control"



Oh you left an impression. Just another morally bereft Liberal who's too egocentric to grasp basic economic principles and who's chosen to act concerned over the deaths of innocent women and children just to push a gun control debate. You don't "care" unless there is blood, I care enough to allow them there right to defend themselves.

Liberals lie, they're typically selfish and sad and angry little people. You guys quit counting dead soldiers and crying about the war when Obama took over, your ILK lowered the flags for Whitney Houston's drug overdose but when a decorated sniper loses his life trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD your expectantly quiet.

GROW UP....

Tell them to their face ? What are you eleven years old

Yeah...go ahead. Tell these people who's kids won't get to be 11 years old

Yes, you Libs, which would include Obama and his ilk . demagogue issues and use the blood of innocents to push a very old liberal agenda. Gun control

Guns over people?? Life doesn't revolve around guns. It's the blood of innocents that needs to be addressed and you prefer guns over their blood. Pretty sick set of values. But then you are a conservaturd aren't you?

Obviously those in the gallery agree with Obama's nonsensical gun control regulation that would do nothing to stop gun violence by criminals.

Those in the gallery are the families of victims of gun violence. They might have something to say about it that weighs heavier than anything you might add.

Also cold is again, using the deaths of 20 innocent children to push a gun agenda. Enough of your false concern.

False concern??? :shock: You think that these people have no right to have their concerns addressed? And you think that those of us that have blood running through our veins are expressing false concern?? Just how cynical can you people get?? Who the hell are you to pass judgment on them or the people that can feel what it's like to lose a child. What do you know of that?

No, the difference between you and me is you feign concern over dead children and Teachers to push your agenda and you legitimize it by making ridiculous statements like... " blood drenched psycho that runs it "

You know what? Your a real prime A**hole. You are totally Guns Over People. ESAD Mofo. You have no concern for the killing of these kids? Really??

I imagined more than a few high fives going around the white house when the body count came in.Classy...

Right. The President was cheering the body count. Classy huh? There's nothing classy about YOU! You're a real sick fk. You're disgustng ilk allowed 9/11, took us into two wars, crashed the economy, and you have no cred left. It's all spent. You have nothing left but to sit back and bitch. You lost, and you'll continue to lose so take your wormwood like a good little boy, and go play out in the street. We'll point the way if you have trouble.:2wave:
 
Do you not understand the minimum wage is what establishes the ‘poverty level’? By changing the minimum wage we will merely move the poverty level and the same ‘class’ of earners will remain under the poverty level…consider the hourly wage for the current poverty level for ONE is $5.52. Considering this is it your assertion that a family should be able to thrive off one minimum wage income?


I do agree that MW (if we MUST have it) be adjusted to inflation/cpi/whatever but since it is often argued (by ‘lefties’) that there has been no recent inflation surge AND that MW has kept up with inflation since ~1990 (both from increases and monetary policy) it would be no different if linked TODAY (check it out at below links). This would have no effect on the assistance you refer to as MANY who are currently garnering it make above the minimum income now…

U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Minimum Wage
CPI Inflation Calculator


Do you not understand the minimum wage is what establishes the ‘poverty level’?

That's a false statement. The poverty line is not established by the minimum wage.

Minimum wage increasingly lags poverty line

by Liana Fox

The recently released 2007 federal poverty guideline highlights the severe and growing inadequacy of the minimum wage. Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker (40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) would earn $10,712 a year, falling nearly 40% below the $17,170 poverty level for a family of three. Even after factoring in the earned income tax credit, which was designed to bring low-wage workers up to the poverty line, this worker would still fall short of the poverty line.

By changing the minimum wage we will merely move the poverty level and the same ‘class’ of earners will remain under the poverty level

Oh Jesus:doh. We don't move the poverty line based on the minimum wage you moron. The minimum wage is below that line right now. Where do you people come from???:roll: The minimum wage is at its lowest real value in over 50 years and has not been raised since 1997. This is the longest stretch of federal inaction since the minimum wage was first instated in 1938. As the basic income required to support a family has grown with inflation,2 the minimum wage has not kept pace with the rising costs of goods. As a result, federal inaction leaves minimum wage workers in an increasingly dire situation. It is widely recognized that the poverty line substantially understates the income needed to support a family. The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[7] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.
 
So when the President stated ‘Will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing’ during the ’08 campaign and hasn’t got anything done (except reissuing the assertion 50 cents lower) we can’t call that ‘failed’? Blocked? Show me the legislation that was proposed to the DEMOCRATICALLY held congress that blocked such…

Btw others do describe it as ‘failed’:
Obama broken promises - increase the minimum wage to 9.50 an hour


No. You could call it postponed.There were a few other things on his agenda, like the economic crises, the auto industry, ending a war and dealing with a hostile congress. There is a time for everything, and not everything got done in the first term. That's why he wanted a second. To finish what he started. Why do you find that unusual?
 
We need government to set a minimum wage so people like you don't exploit the workers. Pay a man a living wage, or you aren't worth being in business in the first place.


This has to be a joke or a game for you that I am no longer going to play. You have been provided with data and actual facts which you choose to ignore. You have yet to answer any direct question but instead divert, distort, and make wild claims like this one.

Not sure what it is about people like you who have no problem making a fool out of yourself. A true Obama supporter is very naive, gullible, and poorly informed. Results don't matter nor does a true understanding of history, economics, and civics. It is always someone else's fault for personal failures and liberals have all the answers but never the solutions to real problems.
 
We need government to set a minimum wage so people like you don't exploit the
workers. Pay a man a
living wage, or you aren't worth being in business in the first place.

It's your Presidents policies that have exploited more than 8 million workers by removing them from the work force permanently.

So more false concern from another liberal who's closes his ears and eyes to the growing misery of the middle class and....blames the Republicans.

Obama had 2 years to impliment exactly what was priority to him and it was a Disasterous stupid health care law that raised the price of premiums and borrowed close to a trillion dollars to pump into local and state public sector Unions and bankrupt green energy companies.

Yea lets keep teachers and their pensions paid, their students live off of foodstamps but the liberals "feel their pain".

There is over 30 different jobs bills in the Senate right now from the House that wont get a vote for some reason.

So much for your blame game.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Your inablity to write effectively is noted. Obviously I don't care what you "feel". I didn't come here to make you feel good. I'm here to stick a thumb in your eye.:shock: Is that brief enough for you? :doh

Well then, you have confused your head with your thumb, and your ass with my eye. :)
 
Good. Then maybe you'll avoid the "catchy phrase". We wouldn't want you to come off as a hypocrite would we?
Heavens no. I wouldn't want to be associated with group that uses catchy phrases like "War on Women", "Hope and Change", "Change you can believe in," Investing in the future," or anything like that. I'm certain you avoid such hypocritical chutzpa too.
 
Right that's it. It's all a great plot. Why don't you quit the cynical garbage, and think about it from the perspective of the wage earner for a change? We're seeing the greatest increase in corporate profits ever, and you're concerned about Wal-Mart paying $9/hr? That would take 700,000 Wal-Mart employees out of poverty and those people would have more money to spend back into the economy. 700,000. And that's just WalMart.

That will only cost Walmart $26,000,000 per year so they would never raise prices or cut employee hours. Going from $15K/year to $18.7/year does not take one out of poverty, but it surely does make one starting out "earn" more than many that have been working for much longer. Those folks will just love that "fairness". The median income in the US is now about $24K (for HS graduates, age 25 and older), so instead of starting at 60% of that pay they would then start at 77% of their final pay. Perhaps it is best to let people work their way up rather than mandate that a starting wage be worth as much or more than the wage you can earn after 5 to 7 years.

File:Historical median personal income by education attainment in the US.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Its a job killer put forth by a job killer.

Raising minimum wage with ObamaCare kicking in.

Its like Obama's purposely going after the middle class.
 
Minimum wage increasingly lags poverty line
The recently released 2007 federal poverty guideline highlights the severe and growing inadequacy of the minimum wage. Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker (40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) would earn $10,712 a year, falling nearly 40% below the $17,170 poverty level for a family of three. Even after factoring in the earned income tax credit, which was designed to bring low-wage workers up to the poverty line, this worker would still fall short of the poverty line.

Oh Jesus:doh...indeed…that is a false statement…your reference was from 2007, 5 years ago, when the MW was 5.85 so yes her arithmetic is correct THEN but not now. Currently as you so accurately stated ‘Poverty is considered around $14,000’ AND if one uses her assumptions (40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) a MW earner WOULD earn above the poverty line…as I posted earlier…Considering this simple arithmetic explain how the ‘Minimum wage increasingly lags poverty line’.

Oh Jesus:doh. We don't move the poverty line based on the minimum wage you moron.
Personal attacks do not benefit your argument…
The minimum wage is below that line right now. Where do you people come from???:roll: The minimum wage is at its lowest real value in over 50 years and has not been raised since 1997. This is the longest stretch of federal inaction since the minimum wage was first instated in 1938. As the basic income required to support a family has grown with inflation,2 the minimum wage has not kept pace with the rising costs of goods. As a result, federal inaction leaves minimum wage workers in an increasingly dire situation. It is widely recognized that the poverty line substantially understates the income needed to support a family. The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[7] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.

These too are a false statements; ‘not raised since 1997’ as it was raised in 2007, ’08, ’09.

‘the minimum wage has not kept pace with the rising costs of goods ‘, as provided previously the current MW is above the inflation adjusted amount and has been since 1990.

Again show how ‘minimum wage is below that line right now’…It would go something like this 7.35 x 40 x 52 = 15,288. If two earners 15,288 x 2=30,576 well above the $23,050 you presented above…

I presume that since your above response includes ‘[7]’ it is taken from another source and based on your assertions I suspect is outdated. Can you provide the link so the excerpt you present can be reviewed in context?,,,thx
 
No. You could call it postponed.There were a few other things on his agenda, like the economic crises, the auto industry, ending a war and dealing with a hostile congress. There is a time for everything, and not everything got done in the first term. That's why he wanted a second. To finish what he started. Why do you find that unusual?

You're kidding right, excuses :doh...'hostile congress'? The DEMOCRATS had the majority (often supermajority in the Senate) for the President's first two years...considering this how hard would it be to raise the minimum wage? I mean it is not new legislation but merely a number change...

As to 'postponed' that's not what Politifact calls it...they state it is a promise broken but of course an apologist can call it whatever they want. As to why I find that unusual...because I know NOW with the 'hostile congress' it will not happen.
 
You're kidding right, excuses :doh...'hostile congress'? The DEMOCRATS had the majority (often supermajority in the Senate) for the President's first two years...considering this how hard would it be to raise the minimum wage? I mean it is not new legislation but merely a number change...

As to 'postponed' that's not what Politifact calls it...they state it is a promise broken but of course an apologist can call it whatever they want. As to why I find that unusual...because I know NOW with the 'hostile congress' it will not happen.

Exactly and we all know that no other President in history had a "hostile" Congress to deal with. The problem today is we have a President who lacks leadership skills and the ability to overcome his leftwing philosophy/ideology in order to lead a Center right nation. His "my way or the highway" attitude and leadership style is contrary to any positive leadership technique taught in even the most leftwing schools. Far too many lack an understanding of leadership, the responsibilities of leadership, and the fact that you cannot delegate that responsibility ever.

What the Obama cult is going to do is divert from his record, ignore his failures or blame everyone else for his failures, and ignore basic civics and history.
 
Heavens no. I wouldn't want to be associated with group that uses catchy phrases like "War on Women", "Hope and Change", "Change you can believe in," Investing in the future," or anything like that. I'm certain you avoid such hypocritical chutzpa too.

LOL You forgot the best one..... "fair share".
 
LOL You forgot the best one..... "fair share".
I did. I'm still on my first cup of coffee and I'm trying to bend the cost curve all at the same time. In a few minutes, I'm going to pivot and focus on a shower like a laser.
 
Its a job killer put forth by a job killer.

Raising minimum wage with ObamaCare kicking in.

Its like Obama's purposely going after the middle class.
Are we the taxpayers subsidizing the companies that have workers working for minimum wage? Since they pay the least amount legally possible, don't the taxpayers end up paying for medicaid, food stamps etc?
 
Are we the taxpayers subsidizing the companies that have workers working for minimum wage? Since they pay the least amount legally possible, don't the taxpayers end up paying for medicaid, food stamps etc?

Which only illustrates further that medicaid and food stamps are also a part of the problem.
 
Are we the taxpayers subsidizing the companies that have workers working for minimum wage? Since they pay the least amount legally possible, don't the taxpayers end up paying for medicaid, food stamps etc?

Dang...you're correct. Now where has the President claimed or proposed that we reduce 'investment' in 'medicaid, food stamps etc' after increasing the MW?
 
I did. I'm still on my first cup of coffee and I'm trying to bend the cost curve all at the same time. In a few minutes, I'm going to pivot and focus on a shower like a laser.

Great goal! All you need to remember is that we will require periodic updates on the difficulties you're having with Republicans in Congress that are preventing you from accomplishing your goal of getting that shower taken. :)
 
Dang...you're correct. Now where has the President claimed or proposed that we reduce 'investment' in 'medicaid, food stamps etc' after increasing the MW?
I'm all for a time limit or amount of money that one person can receive money from the government.
 
Are we the taxpayers subsidizing the
companies that have workers working for minimum wage? Since they pay the least amount legally possible, don't the taxpayers end up paying for medicaid, food stamps etc?

Subsidizing ? You mean by being consumers ?

Companies and corporations DON'T pay tax's, they simply distribute the tax's from the consumer to the Govt.

Try not to get tied up in the corrupt philosophy from the left that would have you believe that Corporations dont pass on their tax burden to the consumers. They do.

So a tax increase on the Mean Ole' Corporations is actually a tax on the middle class as they raise their prices or lay off workers or all of the above and relocate.
 
Great goal! All you need to remember is that we will require periodic updates on the difficulties you're having with Republicans in Congress that are preventing you from accomplishing your goal of getting that shower taken. :)
Well, they're already at it. Republican dogs in the back yard are barking at apparently democrat birds.
 
Back
Top Bottom