Presidential spanking being given from VA.
.
Three things were really telling for me:
1. The first - Obama called for the large banks that used bailout money to give bonuses to executives to pay back the money before giving handouts to their CEO's.
The Democrats applauded.....the party of no...the party that never saw a corporate executive that it didn't want to give a payout to....sat on their ass.
But the government is projecting a $19 billion profit and perhaps more on the $245 billion lent to banks, through interest, dividends and the sale of warrants the government received as collateral.
2. Immigration - Obama called for the strengthening of our borders.
The party of no....the party that LOVES the cheap labor that supports big business for low cost.....sat on their ass.
3. Obama called for more prosecution of civil rights violators, equal pay for women and the end of Don't ask/Don't tell.
The party of no....the party that fights against equal rights for minorities....that fights against protection of rights for women and the party that seeks to keep gays as second class citizens.....sat on their ass.
Americans saw the clear and obvious difference between the two parties tonight.
That's because the banks already paid it back. This isn't a matter of different opinions, it's a matter of fact. Obama is lying to your face and you're slurping it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html
Explain how a $120b tax on banks is designed to "recover" the money we gave the banks when the banks earned the government $19b+ in profit.
Have you ever watched a SOTU before? The way it works is that the President's party applauds everything while the minority party only applauds things that they unequivocally support.
The conclude that that means that the Democrats want more strict immigration reform than the Republicans, you would have to have completely ignored the party platforms over the past decade.
I'm sure you saw the difference, but I don't think that's due to any particular qualities of the speech.
That's because the banks already paid it back. This isn't a matter of different opinions, it's a matter of fact. Obama is lying to your face and you're slurping it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html
Explain how a $120b tax on banks is designed to "recover" the money we gave the banks when the banks earned the government $19b+ in profit.
Of course I've seen many many SOTU speeches. Personally, I think the cheerleading is ridiculous.
the party in power always looks idiotic cheering practically everything that th President proposes...
However, I found it very telling, what the Republicans responded to and what they didn't. I said the same of the Democrats in past years.
I am not sure that they have paid it all back yet. Even your quote says it is "projected."
Although, I am not sure what a tax will accomplish. I am sure they want to discourage the notion that banks will get a free bailout everytime they perform badly. Perhaps they are trying to minimize the moral hazard.
Of course I've seen many many SOTU speeches. Personally, I think the cheerleading is ridiculous.
the party in power always looks idiotic cheering practically everything that th President proposes...
However, I found it very telling, what the Republicans responded to and what they didn't. I said the same of the Democrats in past years.
It's always fascinating to see the actual "Left Wing" refuse to clap when tougher laws on terrorists are put forward, less taxes are encouraged, better education statistics announced, that the surge IS working, and that we are intent on being victorious in Iraq.
:doh
Its probably because its all propoganda and fodder. The fact that any Republican would clap shows how ignorant the vast majority of them are and how out of touch with reality they are....or maybe they are just trying to somehow try to salvage something out of their disasterous administration so that they don't all get voted out of office in the next 4 years....hmmmmm....somehow I think thats it.
Did anyone catch President Bush entering and leaving the state of the union speech? Kucinich, Jesses Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee and many other democrats all kiss asses........They could not get closer to the president......
HYPOCRITES!!!!
Who is the hypocrite here? If they did not reach out to the President you and your right-wing radio heros (specifically Hannity here....where you got this talking point)...would have said that they were being distant and arrogant.
Geez....you can't win with you guys. You have something negative to say either way.
Seriously, I could feel the partisan rays eminating from my T.V. He must have blamed Bush for something on 5 different occasions.
The bulk of it has been paid back, and the government is preventing the last ones from paying it back yet. Regardless, the point is that the banks did not cost us $120b. Every time he says that, he's lying.
So he should say that. If the country thinks it's a good idea, it will support it. If not, he shouldn't be lying to drum up support for it.
If the boot fits, wear it.
I agree, he is trying to play the populust card and say we are "punishing" the banks. Of couse in a way we would be if we are giving them a tax to say don't let it happen again. By the way, your article does say in the last paragraph that the banks will pay back the remaining 175 billion by next year. So, he is not exactly lying in saying they have cost us that much, but leaving out that information that they are projected to make the taxpayers a profit might change the opinion of a lot of people. I don't know what you call that, perhaps arguing with half truths.
It was all about Obama.
Obama referred to himself over 100 times.
Breitbart.tv 132: The Number of Times Obama Refers to Himself in One Speech
Yes, but the bulk of what is left is either scheduled to be returned on particular payment structures or is in the form of warrants that the government owns. The fact that the government is still holding onto those doesn't mean that they don't have the money - they just haven't cashed it it yet.
Where Obama is getting the $120b figure from is when you add in all projected losses, regardless of whether they're due to the banks. That means he's trying to make the banks pay for the losses of GM, Chrysler, etc.
Doesn't this forum have a minimum age limit?
Blame Bush you are not smart enough to know I am right. Then he showed it is about his power hunger. It was all about Obama.
Obama referred to himself over 100 times.
Breitbart.tv 132: The Number of Times Obama Refers to Himself in One Speech
Last week in Michigan he said it 132 times...
He is very Lincoln-like.
.
He is very prideful and arrogant